THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  OPERATION  OF  THE  INITIATIVE. 
REFERENDUM,  AND  RECALL  IN  OREGON 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •    BOSTON  •   CHICAGO  •   DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •    SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •   CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


THE  OPERATION  OF 

THE  INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM,  AND 

RECALL  IN  OREGON 


BY 


JAMES   D.    BARNETT,    PH.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  OREGON 


Nrtn  fforfc 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 
1915 

Att  rights  rettrved 


COPYRIGHT,  1915, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  December,  1915. 


Nortooob 

J.  8.  Gushing  Go.  —  Berwick  A  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


College 
•Library 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

IN  the  preparation  of  this  book  indebtedness  to  many  persons, 
especially  state  and  local  officials,  has  been  incurred  for  infor- 
mation on  various  matters.  As  is  evident,  extensive  use  has 
been  made  of  the  leading  state  newspapers,  the  Oregonian  and 
the  Oregon  Journal.  These  have  been  supplemented  especially 
by  two  of  the  local  papers,  the  Eugene  Register  and  the  Eugene 
Guard.  A  bibliography  of  studies  by  observers  of  the  Oregon 
System,  consulted  in  this  connection,  is  given  in  the  appendix. 
For  suggestions  and  corrections  I  am  under  obligation  to  my 
colleagues,  Professor  J.  H.  Gilbert  and  Professor  R.  C.  Clark, 
who  have  read  the  manuscript  and  proof.  The  scope  of  the 
book  is  not  as  wide  as  the  title  would  strictly  indicate,  for  the 
operation  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  the  localities  is 

not  included. 

JAMES  D.  BARNETT. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  OREGON, 
November  1, 1915. 


1049935 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

PART  I 
THE  INITIATIVE  AND   REFERENDUM 


PACKS 

1.  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  SYSTEM  OF  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  3-5 

2.  THE  PROVISIONS  FOR  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  IN  GENERAL   .  5-8 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  AUTHORS   OF  PROPOSED   LEGISLATION 

1.  THE  LEGISLATURE 9-12 

2.  THE  EXECUTIVE 12-13 

3.  "THE  PEOPLE"                               .      ' 13-20 

1.  Authors  Concealed 13—16 

2.  "  Every  Man  His  Own  Legislature  "   .        .        .        .  16-18 

3.  Associations 18 

4.  Radicals  and  Conservatives 18-20 

CHAPTER   III 
THE  MOTIVES   IN   LEGISLATION.        .        21-25 

CHAPTER   IV 

THE  PREPARATION   OF   MEASURES        .        26-30 
vii 


Vlll 


Table  of  Contents 


CHAPTER   V 
THE   SUBSTANCE   AND    FORM   OF   MEASURES 

FACES 

1.  THE  MEASURES  SUBMITTED 31-37 

2.  SUITABLE  AND  UNSUITABLE  SUBJECTS 37-41 

3.  DECEPTION  IN  MEASURES 42-44 

4.  THE  COMBINATION  OF  SUBJECTS  IN  MEASURES  .        .        .  44-46 

5.  CONFLICTING  MEASURES 47-49 

6.  THE  FORM  OF  MEASURES 50^53 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE   MAKING   OF   PETITIONS 

1.  THE  PERCENTAGE  OF  SIGNATURES  REQUIRED       .        .        .  54-58 

2.  THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  SIGNATURES    .        .  58-59 

3.  THE  PAYMENT  OF  CIRCULATORS 59-64 

4.  THE  METHODS  OF  CIRCULATORS 64-74 

5.  SUBSTITUTES  FOR  CIRCULATION 74-77 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE   MULTIPLICITY   OF   MEASURES 

1.  THE  NUMBER  OF  MEASURES 78-80 

2.  THE  BURDEN  ON  THE  VOTERS 81-82 

3.  THE  CAUSES  AND  THE  REMEDIES 82-85 

CHAPTER  VIII 

CAMPAIGN   ORGANIZATION        .        .  86 

CHAPTER   IX 

FINANCE          ....  87-90 

CHAPTER  X 
THE   EDUCATION  OF  THE  VOTE 

1.  THE  STUDY  OF  MEASURES 91-92 

2.  THE  MEANS  OF  INFORMATION 93-99 

3.  THE  RESULTS  OF  EDUCATION        .               ....  99-100 


Table  of  Contents 


IX 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE   VOTE   IN   DIRECT   LEGISLATION 

PAGES 

1.  THE  INTEREST  IN  THE  ELECTIONS 101-103 

2.  MINORITY  versus  MAJORITY 103-105 

3.  THE  AMOUNT  OF  LEGISLATION  ENACTED     ....  105-107 

4.  THE  RATIONALITY  OF  THE  VOTE 107-125 

1.  The  Confusion  of  the  Measure  with  the  Referendum  107 

2.  The  Identification  of  Measures 107-108 

3.  Knowledge  of  the  Contents  of  Measures     .        .        .  108-112 

4.  Attention  to  Legal  Technicalities  of  Form .         .         .  112 

5.  The  Vote  on  Subjects  Unsuitable  to  Direct  Legislation  112-113 

6.  The  Vote  on  Measures  Submitted  by  Selfish  Interests  113-115 

7.  The  Vote  on  Conflicting  Measures      ....  115-117 

8.  Conservatism  and  Progressivism  in  the  Vote      .         .  117-120 

9.  The  Vote  of  the  Uncertain  Voter        ....  121-123 

10.  The  Vote  as  Protest 123 

11.  The  Intelligence  of  the  Vote  in  General     .         .         .  123-125 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE   DIRECT   AND   THE   REPRESENTATIVE 
LEGISLATURES 

1.  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND  REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  128 

2.  THE  Two  LEGISLATIVE  BODIES 128-130 

CHAPTER  XIV 

CHECKS   OF   THE   LEGISLATIVE   ASSEMBLY 
UPON   DIRECT   LEGISLATION 

1.  THE  REGULATION  OF  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  .    131-132 

2.  EMERGENCY  LEGISLATION 132-144 

3.  THE  DIVISION  OF  LEGISLATIVE  MEASURES  .        .        .  144 

CHAPTER  XV 


x  Table  of  Contents 

CHAPTER  XVI 

PACKS 

PUBLIC    OPINION   BILLS   .        .         .     157-158 

CHAPTER   XVII 

COMPETITION   WITH   THE    LEGISLATIVE 

ASSEMBLY         ....     159-166 

CHAPTER   XVIII 

THE  EFFECT  OF  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  ON  THE 
CHARACTER  AND  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  LEGIS- 
LATIVE ASSEMBLY 167-170 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  REFERENDUM  AS  A  SUBSTITUTE  FOR  CON- 
STITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS  UPON  THE  LEGIS- 
LATIVE ASSEMBLY 171-172 

CHAPTER   XX 
DIRECT   LEGISLATION   AND   THE   COURTS 

1.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  DIRECT  LEGISLATION    .        .        .    173-174 

2.  "  THE  RECALL  OF  JUDICIAL  DECISIONS  "  174-176 

CHAPTER  XXI 

DIRECT   LEGISLATION    AND   THE   CONSTITU- 
TIONAL  CONVENTION      .         .        .     177-179 

CHAPTER   XXII 

DIRECT   LEGISLATION   AND   THE   STABILITY   OF 

GOVERNMENT     ....     180-184 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

DIRECT   LEGISLATION   AND   POLITICAL 

PARTIES  ....     185-186 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

STATE   DIRECT   LEGISLATION   AND   FEDERAL 

MATTERS  187 


Table  of  Contents  xi 

CHAPTER  XXV 

PAGES 

THE   POPULARITY   OF   DIRECT   LEGISLA- 
TION        188 

PART   II 

THE   RECALL  ....  189-218 

PART   III 

APPENDIX 

I.     BIBLIOGRAPHY 221-227 

II.    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  STATUTORY  PROVISIONS     .        .  227-241 

III.  THE     VOTE     ON      INITIATIVE     AND      REFERENDUM 

MEASURES 241-253 

IV.  A  MEASURE  AND  ARGUMENTS 254—274 

V.    AN  INITIATIVE  PETITION 274-275 

VI.    NEWSPAPER  ADVICE  ON  DIRECT  LEGISLATION      .        .  275-279 

VII.     RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  TAXPAYERS'  LEAGUE         .  280-286 

VIII.     ADVERTISEMENTS 287-288 

IX.    A  BALLOT  FOR  MEN  AND  MEASURES     ....  288 

X.     A  RECALL  PETITION 289-290 

XI.    A  RECALL  BALLOT 291-292 

INDEX  293-295 


PART  I 
THE  INITIATIVE  AND   REFERENDUM 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION 

i 
The  Adoption  of  the  System  of  Direct  Legislation 

THE  state  constitution  of  1859  provided  for  an  obligatory 
referendum  on  constitutional  amendments  proposed  by  the 
legislative  assembly  to  the  people,  and,  while  prohibiting  gen- 
erally the  referring  of  statutes  to  the  people,  it  authorized  the 
submission  of  local  and  special  legislation  to  the  voters  of  the 
district  affected.1  At  the  constitutional  convention  a  proposal 
had  been  made  to  allow  the  legislative  assembly  to  refer  any 
statute  to  the  voters,  but  this  was  rejected.2 

The  agitation  for  the  present  system  of  direct  legislation 
hardly  commenced  before  i8g2.3  Beginning  with  1892,  a  cam- 
paign for  the  adoption  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  was 
carried  on  with  tireless  effort,  under  the  remarkable  leadership 
of  W.  S.  U'Ren,  aided  by  the  Joint  Committee  on  Direct  Legis- 
lation, later  broadened  into  the  Direct  Legislation  League  (the 
forerunner  of  the  People's  Power  League),  with  the  result  that 
after  ten  years  the  system  was  embodied  in  the  constitution.4 
Advocated  by  the  granges,  the  labor  unions,  and  the  Populist 

1  Constitution,  art.  17,  sec.  i ;  art.  i,  sec.  21  (1859). 

*  Proceedings  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  Oregonian,  Oct.  3,  1857,  p.  i,  col.  6. 
See  also  G.  H.  Williams,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  May  27,  1002,  p.  10,  col.  3. 

1  For  details  regarding  the  adoption  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  see  especially 
L.  Pease,  Initiative  and  Referendum  —  Oregon's  "Big  Stick,"  Pacific  Monthly,  vol.  17, 
PP-  563-75  (1007) ;  L.  Steffens,  U'Ren  —  The  Law-Giver,  American  Magazine,  vol. 
65,  pp.  527-40  (1008);  B.  J.  Hendrick,  Initiative  and  Referendum  and  How  Oregon 
Got  Them,  McClure's  Magazine,  vol.  37,  pp.  234-48  (191 1). 

*  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902). 

3 


4      Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

party,  it  had  finally  been  indorsed  both  by  the  Republican  and 
Democratic  parties. 

"The  causes  which  led  to  its  adoption  are  the  same  that  are 
in  evidence  throughout  the  country  generally.  The  people  felt 
the  government  was  getting  away  from  them  and  they  desired  a 
more  direct  control,  both  in  the  making  of  laws  and  in  their 
enforcement,  than  they  enjoyed.  More  potent,  however,  than 
this  was  the  failure  of  the  legislature  to  respond  to  the  demand 
of  the  people  for  the  enforcement  of  laws  respecting  the  control 
of  corporations,  taxation,  and  kindred  subjects  affecting  public 
interests.  Boss-ridden  legislatures  and  councils  were  the  rule 
rather  than  the  exception,  and  the  people  were  tired  of  coaxing 
and  pleading  to  secure  desired  legislation.  Legislatures  and 
councils  were  too  often  more  solicitous  for  special  than  for  the 
public  interests  and  the  people  wanted  to  secure  some  effective 
and  direct  method  of  making  their  influence  felt  and  their  wishes 
respected.  The  difficulty  in  securing  the  enactment  of  the 
Australian  ballot  law  and  the  registration  law  are  examples  of 
laws  the  people  wanted,  and  which  were  enacted  grudgingly 
and  after  long-continued  agitation.  Other  important  measures 
failed  repeatedly  to  pass.  The  combined  effect  was  to  create 
a  sentiment  (as  shown  by  the  vote)  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of 
the  new  procedure."  l 

1  J.  N.  Teal,  Practical  Workings  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Cin- 
cinnati Conference  for  Good  City  Government,  1909,  pp.  309,  310.  Cf.  Oregonian, 
Nov.  28, 1902,  p.  6,  col.  i ;  H.  W.  Scott,  ibid.,  Oct.  16, 1907,  p.  n,  col.  3.  "Although 
it  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  eleven  to  one,  a  great  many  people  did  not  know 
what  they  were  voting  for.  The  friends  of  the  measure  had  been  working  judiciously 
for  it  for  years,  had  secured  the  endorsement  of  the  newspapers,  many  of  the  leading 
men  of  the  state,  and  had  by  shrewd  management  got  possession  of  the  political 
parties,  to  the  extent,  at  least,  that  all  candidates  printed  'Vote  for  Initiative  and 
Referendum'  on  all  their  election  cards  and  bill  posters  and  were  all  lined  up  to 
advocate  the  measure  during  election.  .  .  .  Many  did  not  know  what  they  were 
voting  for,  simply  following  the  rest."  H.  Denlinger,  Arena,  vol.  38,  pp.  83-4  (1007). 
Such  statements  are  repeated  by  Oregonians  again  and  again,  both  in  regard  to 
the  members  of  the  legislature  and  the  people,  and  are  widely  believed  to  be  true. 

Some  of  the  leaders  have  been  interested  in  the  movement  chiefly  as  a  means  of 
securing  the  ultimate  adoption  of  the  single  tax.  "  I  went  just  as  crazy  over  the  single 


Introduction  5 

In  1906  the  initiative  and  referendum  system  was  extended 
by  constitutional  amendment  to  every  municipality  and  district, 
as  to  "all  local,  special,  and  municipal  legislation"  of  every 
character  for  the  respective  municipalities  and  districts.1  For 
some  reason  the  majority  of  votes  received  by  this  amendment 
was  very  much  less  than  that  received  by  the  amendment  which 
established  the  system  for  the  state  four  years  earlier. 


The  Provisions  for  Direct  Legislation  in  General 2 

"  There  is  a  difference  between  the  initiative  and  the  referen- 
dum —  a  vast  difference.  .  .  .  The  initiative  is  an  instru- 
mentality of  popular  government  through  which  the  people 
propose  and  enact  laws  or  adopt  constitutional  amendments 
without  regard  for  any  legislature  or  any  other  representative 
or  delegated  body.  The  referendum  is  a  plebiscite  by  which  the 
people  as  a  whole  approve  or  reject  any  measure  previously 
adopted  by  the  legislature,  or  referred  to  them  directly  by  the 
legislature.  All  measures  under  the  initiative  are  a  demonstra- 
tion of  the  original  law-making  function.  All  measures  under 
the  referendum  are  a  demonstration  of  the  law-approving  or 
law-rejecting  function."  3 

tax  idea  as  any  one  else  ever  did.  I  knew  I  wanted  single  tax,  and  that  was  about 
all  I  did  know.  ...  I  learned  what  the  initiative  and  referendum  is,  and  then  I 
saw  the  way  to  single  tax.  So  I  quit  talking  single  tax,  not  because  I  was  any  the 
less  hi  favor  of  it  but  because  I  saw  that  the  first  job  was  to  get  the  initiative  and 
referendum,  so  that  the  people,  independently  of  the  legislature,  may  get  what  they 
want  rather  than  take  what  the  legislature  will  let  them  have.  ...  All  the  work 
we  have  done  for  direct  legislation  has  been  done  with  the  single  tax  in  view,  but  we 
have  not  talked  single  tax  because  that  was  not  the  question  before  the  house." 
W.  S.  U'Ren,  Report  of  Single  Tax  Conference,  1910,  pp.  21-2. 

1  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  la  (1906).  *  Below,  pp.  227-40. 

*Oregonian,  Oct.  15,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  2.  "There  is  a  distinction  .  .  .  between 
the  referendum  and  the  initiative,  in  which  latter  legislation  is  initiated  and  the 
whole  matter  must  be  formulated  just  as  it  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  while 
in  the  referendum  it  is  only  a  question  of  the  approval  or  disapproval  by  the  people 
of  what  the  legislature  has  already  enacted  as  a  law."  Palmer  v.  Benson,  Oregon 
Reports,  vol.  50,  pp.  277,  279  (1907). 


6      Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

The  original  constitutional  provision  for  a  referendum  upon 
constitutional  amendments  required  for  the  approval  of  the 
amendment  a  majority  vote  of  all  the  members  of  each  house  of 
two  succeeding  legislative  assemblies,  and  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  electors  voting  at  the  election  for  putting  the 
amendment  into  effect.1  This  was  changed  in  1906  to  allow 
amendments  to  be  submitted  after  action  by  one  assembly,  and 
to  require  only  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  amendment  for 
its  approval  by  the  voters.2 

By  the  radical  extension  of  the  principle  of  direct  legislation 
established  by  the  constitutional  amendment  of  1902,  "the 
people  reserve  to  themselves  power  to  propose  laws  and  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution  and  to  enact  or  reject  the  same  at  the 
polls,  independent  of  the  legislative  assembly,  and  also  reserve 
power  at  their  own  option  to  approve  or  reject  at  the  polls  any 
act  of  the  legislative  assembly."  "The  first  power  reserved 
by  the  people  is  the  initiative."  Any  measure  may  thus  be 
proposed  by  a  petition  signed  by  eight  per  cent  of  the  legal 
voters  of  the  state  as  determined  by  the  votes  cast  at  the  last 
preceding  general  election  for  justice  of  the  supreme  court.3 
Initiative  petitions  must  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not 
less  than  four  months  before  the  election.  "The  second  power 
is  the  referendum."  It  may  be  ordered,  except  as  to  emergency 
measures,  by  a  petition  signed  by  five  per  cent  of  the  legal  voters 
determined  as  in  the  case  of  initiative  petitions.  Referendum 
petitions  must  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not  more  than 
ninety  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  the  legislative  as- 
sembly. The  referendum  may  be  demanded  "against  one  or 
more  items,  sections,  or  parts  of  any  act  of  the  legislative  as- 
sembly" in  the  same  manner  as  against  a  complete  act.  The 

1  Constitution,  art.  17,  sec.  i  (1859).    Below,  p.  180. 

*  Ibid.,  art.  17,  sec.  i  (1906). 

1  The  substitution  of  the  vote  cast  for  governor  in  place  of  the  vote  cast  for  justice 
of  the  supreme  court  would  remove  a  difficulty  of  calculation  in  cases  where  more 
than  one  justice  is  elected  at  the  same  time.  Cf.  House  Joint  Resolution,  1915,  no.  2, 
sec.  i. 


Introduction  7 

legislative  assembly,  formerly  prohibited  from  submitting 
statutory  measures  (except  local  and  special  measures  to  the 
localities  affected)  to  the  voters  of  the  state,  may  now  so  refer 
any  statutory  measures  whatever.  Statutes  providing  for  the 
relocation  of  the  state  capital  or  for  the  location,  away  from  the 
capital,  of  state  institutions,  or  for  calling  constitutional  con- 
ventions must  be  approved  by  the  voters  before  they  become 
effective.  The  vote  upon  measures  submitted  to  the  people  is 
had  at  the  regular  biennial  election,  unless  (except  in  case  of 
statutes  relocating  the  capital  or  locating  state  institutions 
away  from  the  capital,  or  calling  a  constitutional  convention) 
the  assembly  calls  a  special  election  for  the  purpose.  A  major- 
ity of  the  votes  cast  upon  a  measure  is  required  for  its  approval.1 

If  two  or  more  conflicting  laws  or  conflicting  constitutional 
amendments  are  approved  at  the  same  election,  the  law  or 
amendment  receiving  the  greatest  number  of  votes  is  para- 
mount in  all  particulars  as  to  which  there  is  a  conflict,  even 
though  it  may  not  have  received  the  greatest  majority  of  affirma- 
tive votes.2 

The  forms  for  initiative  and  referendum  petitions  are  pre- 
scribed by  law.3 

Under  the  law  of  1903  the  verification  of  signatures  on  the 
petition  was  made  by  the  county  clerks,  who  compared  them 
with  the  signatures  on  the  registration  records,  and  certified 
their  findings  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  signatures  and  the 
qualifications  of  the  signers  to  the  secretary  of  state.  The 
decision  of  the  secretary  of  state  as  to  these  matters  and  as  to 
whether  the  petition  generally  fulfilled  the  requirements  of  the 

1  Constitution,  art.  i,  sec.  21  (1859) ;  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902) ;  art.  4,  sec.  la  (1906) ; 
art.  14,  sec.  i  (1859);  art.  14,  sec.  3  (1908).  A  constitutional  amendment  of  1910 
provided  that  no  bill  regulating  taxation  or  exemption  throughout  the  state  should 
become  a  law  until  approved  by  the  people  of  the  state.  Constitution,  art.  9,  sec.  xa 
(1910).  But  this  was  repealed  two  years  later.  Constitution,  art.  9,  sec.  la  (1912). 

*  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  7 ;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3477.     See  below,  p.  47. 

*  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i ;  Laws,  1903,  p.  244;  1907,  ch.  226,  sees.  1-2 ;  Lord's 
Oregon  Laws,  sees.  3420-2 ;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  i. 


8      Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

law  was  reviewable  by  the  supreme  court.1  Verification  by  the 
persons  circulating  the  petition  is  substituted  by  the  law  of  1907, 
and  the  circuit  court  is  authorized  to  review  the  secretary's 
action  in  mandamus  or  injunction  proceedings.2 

A  person  signing  a  name  other  than  his  own  to  any  petition  or 
knowingly  signing  his  name  more  than  once  for  the  same 
measure,  or  who  is  not  at  the  time  of  his  signing  a  legal  voter 
is  subject  to  punishment  by  fine  and  imprisonment.3 

The  ballot  titles,  formerly  drawn  by  the  authors  of  initiative 
or  referendum  measures,  are  now  drawn  by  the  attorney- 
general,  but  appeal  from  his  decision  to  the  circuit  court  is  al- 
lowed.4 

Under  the  law  of  1903,  pamphlets  advocating  or  opposing 
initiative  or  referendum  measures,  prepared  at  the  sole  expense 
of  the  interested  parties,  might  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of 
state  for  distribution  to  the  county  clerks  for  final  distribution 
to  the  voters.6  At  present  the  state  shares  the  expense  of  the 
preparation  of  the  "voters'  pamphlet,"  and  the  distribution  is 
made  directly  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  the  voters.6 

1  Laws,  1903,  p.  244,  sees.  3-4. 

*  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  3;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  2.     The  supreme  court 
may,  in  its  own  discretion,  take  original  jurisdiction  in  mandamus  proceedings. 
Constitution,  art.  7,  sec.  2  (1910). 

3  Laws,  1903,  p.  224,  sec.  10;  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  13;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws, 
sec.  3483. 

4  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  5;   Laws,  1913,  ch.  36. 

*  Laws,  1903,  p.  244,  sec.  8. 

*  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  8;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  4. 


The  Legislature 

WHILE  the  action  of  two  legislative  assemblies  was  required 
for  the  submission  of  constitutional  amendments  to  the  voters 
and  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  election  was  required 
for  the  approval  of  amendments,  but  few  amendments  were 
submitted  by  the  assembly.  But  since  the  submission  of 
amendments  by  a  single  assembly  has  been  allowed  and  only 
a  majority  of  the  vote  cast  on  the  amendment  at  the  election 
required  for  its  approval,  the  assembly  has  been  more  active, 
and  has  submitted  twenty-two  amendments  to  the  people  since 

IQ08.1 

The  shifting  upon  the  people  of  responsibility  which  should 
be  assumed  by  the  legislative  assembly  is  prevented  by  the 
provision  of  the  original  constitution  which  forbids  that  "any 
law  shall  be  passed  the  taking  effect  of  which  shall  be  made  to 
depend  upon  any  authority  except  as  provided  in  the  constitu- 
tion," but  at  the  same  time  the  constitution  permits  the  as- 
sembly to  submit  special  and  local  laws  to  the  voters  interested,2 
who  generally  should  be  better  judges  than  the  assembly  in  such 
matters. 

The  necessity  of  local  legislation  by  the  assembly  has  been 
reduced  by  the  amendment  of  1906  investing  the  localities  with 
the  power  of  initiative  and  referendum  in  matters  of  local 

1  At  the  next  general  election  three  constitutional  amendments  originating  in  the 
assembly  will  appear  on  the  ballot.  *  Constitution,  art.  i,  sec.  21  (1859). 

9 


io     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

interest,1  and  an  amendment  of  1910  has  reduced  the  power  of 
the  assembly  in  the  direction  of  local  legislation.2 

Although  the  amendment  of  1902  permits  the  people  of  the 
state  to  demand  the  referendum  upon  legislation  passed  by  the 
assembly,  it  unfortunately  permits  the  assembly  of  its  own 
accord  to  refer  any  legislation  to  the  vote  of  the  people  for  final 
determination.3  This  optional  referendum  not  only  encourages 
the  assembly  to  shift  responsibility  for  legislation  upon  the 
people,4  but  is  a  means  whereby  the  assembly  may  prevent 
the  operation  of  the  governor's  veto,  since  the  veto  is  not  appli- 
cable to  the  measures  referred  to  the  people.6  "If  the  legisla- 
ture would  avoid  the  Scylla  of  a  veto,  it  may  steer  its  measures 
toward  the  Charybdis  of  the  referendum."  6 

In  view  of  the  advantages  which  should  accrue  from  further 
discussion  of  initiative  measures,  as  well  as  from  a  hope  that  in 
this  way  action  by  the  legislative  assembly  would  often  render 
unnecessary  action  by  direct  legislation,  it  has  been  proposed 
that  all  initiative  bills  shall  first  be  presented  to  the  legislature 
and  that  the  legislature  shall  then  either  pass  the  bill  without 
amendment,  or  substitute  a  rival  bill  and  submit  both  bills  to  the 
people.7  It  would  seem  that  the  creation  of  any  tendency  to- 
ward shifting  the  legislature's  responsibility  by  such  an  optional 
referendum  would  be  at  least  balanced  by  a  tendency  to  enact 
needed  legislation  without  waiting  for  pressure  from  unofficial 
action. 

1  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  la  (1906). 

*  Ibid.,  art.  n,  sec.  2  (1910);  art.  9,  sec.  la  (1910,  1912). 

1  Ibid.,  art.  4.  sec.  i  (1902).  "A  bill  adopted  by  the  legislature  may  be  referred 
to  the  people  for  their  ratification.  .  .  .  When  an  act  comes  from  the  legislative 
assembly  it  may  be  affirmed,  we  think,  under  the  clause  of  the  constitution  above 
quoted  that  that  body  cannot  leave  it  to  a  vote  of  the  people  to  determine  whether 
or  not  it  shall  become  a  law,  because  the  taking  effect  thereof  is  thereby  made  to 
depend  upon  an  authority  other  than  that  provided  for  in  the  constitution."  Pouts 
v.  Hood  River,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  46,  pp.  492,  497  (1905).  See  also  Oregon  Journal, 
Feb.  12,  1913,  p.  2,  col.  2 ;  Oregonian,  Feb.  12, 1913,  p.  2,  col.  i. 

4  Below,  pp.  160-70  •  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902). 

•  Libby  v.  Olcott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  66,  pp.  124,  131  (1913). 
1  Below,  pp.  164-5. 


The  Authors  of  Proposed  Legislation          1 1 

In  addition  to  the  objection  urged  against  the  resubmission 
by  the  legislative  assembly  of  measures  enacted  or  defeated  by 
the  voters,  as  an  unwarranted  interference  with  the  will  of  the 
people,1  a  more  substantial  objection  lies  in  the  fact  that  such 
a  practice  encourages  the  over-use  of  direct  legislation.  "If 
the  legislature  at  this  time  establish  a  precedent  of  taking  from 
the  statute  books  measures  passed  by  the  people  and  resub- 
mitting  them,  you  will  soon  have  every  man  with  anything 
against  a  measure  up  before  the  legislature  with  resolutions 
to  put  it  in  the  ballot  again."2  The  same,  indeed,  may  be 
said  in  regard  to  measures  which  have  been  rejected  by  the 
voters. 

Of  course  all  measures  passed  by  the  legislative  assembly 
and  referred  by  the  people  are,  in  a  certain  sense,  "initiated" 
by  the  assembly. 

In  some  instances  the  assembly  has  delegated  the  initiation 
of  constitutional  amendments  or  bills  to  committees  acting  under 
its  authority.  The  important  "rational  tax  reform"  amend- 
ments and  bills  of  1912  were  initiated  by  a  "legislative  tax  com- 
mittee" consisting  of  members  of  the  senate  and  the  house  of 
representatives,  acting  in  conjunction  with  the  state  tax  com- 
missioners. And  a  similar  provision  was  made  for  the  sub- 
mission of  tax  measures  in  1914.  A  commission  appointed  by 
the  governor  under  authority  of  the  legislature  in  1911  was  em- 
powered to  submit  measures  for  the  reform  of  judicial  procedure 
either  to  the  legislature  or  the  people,  but  the  commission  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  legislature. 

Under  such  arrangements,  of  course,  the  legislature  is  shift- 
ing its  responsibility  for  the  enactment  of  legislation  and 
neglecting  to  exercise  even  the  advisory  function  of  referring 
legislation  to  the  people.3 

1  Below,  p.  146. 

*L.  G.  Lewelling,  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  8,  1913,  p.  14,  col.  i. 

1  In  IQII  the  legislative  assembly  could  not  act  finally  upon  taxation  bills,  and  of 
course  must  still  submit  any  proposals  for  constitutional  amendments  affecting  taxa- 
tion to  the  people. 


12     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

The  action  of  the  "legislative  tax  committee"  of  1912  was 
obnoxious  to  the  supporters  of  rival  measures,  and  it  was  doubt- 
less for  this  reason  that  in  a  proposed  constitutional  amendment 
of  that  year  there  was  included  a  provision  to  the  effect  that  the 
legislative  assembly  should  not  "appoint  or  create  any  com- 
mittee, board  or  commission  to  prepare  or  propose  any  measure 
by  initiative  petition,"  and  should  not  appropriate  any  money 
for  the  making  of  initiative  or  referendum  petitions.1  This 
proposition  was  criticized  as  "a  step  to  deprive  the  people,  to  a 
certain  extent,  of  the  right  to  call  on  their  legislatures  for  prep- 
aration and  submission  of  bills,  which  in  the  end  would  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people."  2 

2 
The  Executive 

Recently  a  quasi-official  form  of  organization  for  the  prepara- 
tion of  initiative  measures  has  been  developed.  On  account 
of  the  failure  of  enactment  of  "good  roads"  legislation  at  the 
legislative  session  of  1911,  the  governor,  upon  his  own  respon- 
sibility, appointed  a  "state- wide  committee"  who  prepared 
several  measures  on  the  subject.  These  were  later  revised  by 
a  "harmony  committee"  similarly  appointed,  and  were  finally 
submitted  to  the  popular  vote.  The  "blue-sky"  bill  and  the 
" millage-tax "  bill,  submitted  at  the  same  election,  were  pre- 
pared, both  without  legislative  sanction,  the  first  by  the  cor- 
poration clerk  under  the  direction  of  the  secretary  of  state  and 
with  the  cooperation  of  the  governor,  and  the  latter  by  a  "joint 
committee"  made  up  from  the  governor's  "special  committee" 
and  from  the  boards  of  regents  of  the  university  and  the  agri- 
cultural college  (the  institutions  affected),  working  with  the 
presidents  of  the  respective  institutions.  The  governor  was  also 
largely  responsible  for  the  submission  of  the  anti-capital  punish- 

1  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  no.  362,  art.  4,  sec.  3f,  p.  214.     See  Oregonian, 
Aug.  ii,  1912,  sec.  2,  p.  7,  col.  i. 

2  Reported  in  Oregonian,  Aug.  n,  1912,  sec.  2,  p.  7,  col.  i. 


The  Authors  of  Proposed  Legislation          13 

ment  bill  at  the  same  election,  and  he  was  the  real  author  of  the 
bill  for  the  consolidation  of  the  desert  land  board  and  the  state 
land  board  submitted  at  the  next  election. 

Such  procedure  on  the  part  of  executive  officials  has  met  with 
objection.  In  regard  to  the  initiation  of  the  "blue-sky"  bill 
it  was  said:  "The  sole  question  here  is  whether  the  executive 
department,  through  the  secretary  of  state,  or  the  legislature 
shall  legislate  for  the  people  of  Oregon.  It  is  an  unwarranted 
invasion  by  one  branch  of  the  state  into  the  constitutional 
territory  of  another."  l  And  it  has  even  been  suggested  that  it 
should  be  made  unlawful  for  public  officials  other  than  the 
governor  to  prepare  any  measure  affecting  his  own  public  serv- 
ice or  employment.2 

The  objections  asserted  against  executive  interference  in  direct 
legislation  of  course  apply  to  the  proposal  for  appeal  by  the 
governor  from  the  legislature  to  the  people  in  case  of  vetoed 
bills.3 


"The  People" 

i.  Authors  Concealed. 

At  times  the  real  authors  of  initiative  and  referendum  meas- 
ures find  it  to  their  interest  to  conceal  their  identity  from  the 
public,  and  so  the  voters  are  at  times  confronted  with  measures 
the  sources  of  which  are  unknown  or  uncertain.  Thus,  the 
origin  of  the  attack  on  the  corporation  bill  of  1903  was  uncer- 

1  Oregonian,  Oct.  20,  1912,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  3. 

*  Reported  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  17,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i.    Cf.  California  Laws,  1913, 
ch.  196. 

*  Below,  p.  126.    A  proposed  constitutional  amendment  which  authorized  the 
governor  to  introduce  bills  and  resolutions  in  the  house  of  representatives  at  the 
same  time  authorized  him  to  order  a  referendum  on  any  of  his  measures  which 
might  not  pass,  and,  in  case  the  legislature  passed  a  measure  on  the  same  subject,  to 
order  the  referendum  on  both  measures,  so  that  the  people  might  choose  between 
them.    C.  H.  Chapman  and  others,  Introductory  Letter.  1909,  pp.  8,  33-4.    Cf. 
E.  L.  Norris,  Strengthening  the  Power  of  the  Executive,  Governors'  Conference  Pro- 
ceedings, 1911,  pp.  19-29. 


14     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

tain,  the  authors  of  the  "open-town"  initiative  bill  of  1908 
remained  hidden,  and  the  real  authors  of  the  referenda  on  the 
public  utilities  act  and  the  university  appropriations  of  1912 
have  never  been  revealed.  The  authors  of  four  out  of  the  five 
referenda  of  1913  are  generally  unknown  or  uncertain.  In 
regard  to  the  "open-town"  bill  it  was  reported :  "The  canvass- 
ers who  are  circulating  the  petition  decline  to  tell  whence  it 
emanated  or  to  give  the  name  of  anyone  interested  in  the  adop- 
tion of  the  measure.  .  .  .  The  obvious  desire  of  the  sponsors 
of  this  petition  is  to  keep  in  the  background,  and  to  escape  public 
comment  upon  the  proposed  amendment."  l  The  party  who 
filed  the  petition  against  the  workman's  compensation  act  of 
1913  declared  that  he  himself  did  not  know  who  was  behind  the 
movement.2  Attempt  was  made  to  conceal  the  real  authorship 
of  several  measures  submitted  in  1914. 

Instead  of  simply  hiding  behind  the  party  who  filed  the  peti- 
tion, sometimes  the  real  authors  of  measures  adopt  misleading 
names.  Thus  the  owners  of  the  Barlow  road,  who  initiated 
a  bill  for  the  state's  purchase  of  the  road,  appeared  as  "A 
Committee  of  Farmers,"  a  commercial  club  initiating  an 
amendment  to  require  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  for  the 
enactment  of  initiative  measures  appeared  as  "The  Majority 
Home  Rule  League,"  and  the  opponents  of  the  university  ap- 
propriations of  1913  appeared  as  "The  Oregon  Higher  Educa- 
tional Institutions  Betterment  League."  The  interest  of  the 
single- taxers  in  the  "home-rule"  taxation  measure  was  partly 
obscured  by  the  fact  that  it  was  filed  by  the  State  Federation 
of  Labor. 

For  many  years  "deceptive  law-making"  has  been  decried, 
and  the  necessity  of  reform  in  this  direction  emphasized.  "The 
origin  of  measures  when  known,  discloses  much  concerning  their 
purpose  and  often  leads  to  a  closer  investigation  of  the  merits  of 
a  bill.  Concealment  of  origin  leads  to  deception  of  the  people." 3 

1  Oregon  Journal.  Nov.  i,  1907,  p.  8,  col.  i.      tlbid.,  May  31,  1913,  p.  17,  col.  5. 
3  Oregonian,  July  15,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  a.j 


The  Authors  of  Proposed  Legislation          15 

"This  evil  should  not  be  tolerated  by  the  people  of  this  state. 
The  voters  have  a  right  to  know  the  persons  who  are  boosting 
every  bill  that  appears  on  the  ballots.  The  only  reason  for  con- 
cealment makes  this  public  knowledge  necessary,  for  in  each  case 
some  designing  group  of  persons  is  trying  to  hoodwink  the  public 
by  covering  up  the  real  purpose  of  the  measure."  1  The  remedy 
is  not  easy  to  find.  "As  in  the  case  of  bills  in  the  legislature, 
...  it  is  not  always  possible  to  determine  who  prepared  the 
measures  and  in  whose  interests  they  were  filed.  In  some  in- 
stances the  real  party  in  interest  can  be  only  guessed  at.  To 
determine  who  are  the  secret  promoters  of  any  measure  must  be 
more  difficult  than  to  ascertain  the  hidden  interests  back  of  a 
bill  in  the  legislature."  2 

Until  1913  the  law  did  not  even  require  the  secretary  of  state 
to  keep  a  record  of  the  names  of  the  parties  who  filed  petitions. 
But  that  year  the  legislature  passed  a  law  which  provides  that 
the  ballot  title  shall  contain  the  name  of  the  party  under  whose 
authority  the  measure  was  initiated  or  referred.3  However, 
this  provision  is  very  inadequate  to  stop  the  abuse  described. 
Further,  by  the  act  of  1908,  which  aims  to  secure  the  publicity 
of  campaign  expenditures  in  direct  legislation,4  the  statement 
of  expenditures  "is  not  demanded  until  after  the  issue  has  been 
settled  at  the  polls,"  6  and  the  law  as  it  is  has  generally  not 
been  well  enforced.6 

"Law  says  no  man  shall  lobby  among  the  ninety  legislators 
at  Salem  for  a  bill  'without  first  truly  and  completely  disclosing 
his  interest  therein '  on  pain  of  being  deemed  a  criminal.  Why 
not  a  penalty  also  for  the  man  who,  without  disclosing  his  inter- 
est, lobbies  for  an  initiative  measure  among  the  100,000  law- 
making  voters  throughout  the  state?"7  A  meritorious  bill 
which  aimed  to  accomplish  this  purpose  failed  of  passage  in  the 

1  Oregonian,  Feb.  3,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  3.        2  Ibid.,  Feb.  16,  1908,  p.  9,  col.  i. 
1  Laws,  1913,  ch.  36. 

4  Laws,  1909,  ch.  3,  sec.  12 ;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3497.  See  Oregonian,  Feb. 
3,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  3.  §  Oregonian,  June  6,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

8  Below,  p.  87.  7  Oregonian,  Feb.  3,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  3. 


1 6     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

legislature  of  1913.  "Before  beginning  to  solicit  signatures  on 
any  initiative  or  referendum  petition  for  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment or  a  general  law,  or  for  any  local  law  for  a  county  or  dis- 
trict composed  of  more  than  one  county,  the  person,  committee 
or  organization  proposing  the  same  shall  file  ten  printed  copies 
thereof  with  the  secretary  of  state,  and  also  the  name  and  post- 
office  address  of  the  person,  the  members  of  the  committee,  and 
of  the  organization,  and  the  amount  contributed  or  promised 
by  every  person  contributing  or  promising  to  contribute  towards 
paying  the  expenses  of  such  initiative  or  referendum  petition 
and  campaign  for  the  measure."  l 

2.  "Every  Man  His  Own  Legislature." 

The  system  of  direct  legislation,  and  especially  the  initiative, 
it  is  urged,  makes  "every  man  his  own  legislature."2  "The 
initiative  affords  any  citizen  who  has  evolved  a  solution  of  a 
governmental  problem  an  opportunity  for  demonstration  of  its 
merits.  Under  a  system  of  delegated  legislation  only,  his  ideas 
would  be,  or  quite  likely  would  be,  referred  to  some  committee 
where  further  action  would  be  prevented  through  the  influence 
of  selfish  interest.  Where  the  initiative  exists,  he  may  present 
his  idea  in  the  definite  form  of  a  proposed  bill  if  eight  per  cent  of 
the  legal  voters  consider  it  worthy  of  consideration  and  sign  a 
petition  for  its  submission  to  a  popular  vote.  The  system  en- 
courages every  citizen,  however  humble  his  position,  to  study 
problems  of  government,  city  and  state,  and  to  submit  whatever 
solution  he  may  evolve  for  the  consideration  and  approval  of 
others.  .  .  .  How  different  from  the  system  so  generally  in 
force  which  tends  to  discourage  and  suppress  the  individual."  s 
Thus  becomes  available  "all  the  statesmanship  there  is  among  all 
the  people." 4 

1  House  Bill,  1913,  no.  365,  sec.  4.  See  also  Oregonian,  June  17,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2, 
June  20, 1913,  p.  10,  col.  2.  Cf.  Ohio  Laws,  1914,  p.  119,  sec.  i. 

1  Oregonian,  June  28,  1006,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

1  J.  Bourne,  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  122, 
125-6  (1909).  *  J.  Bourne,  Oregonian,  May  16,  1907,  p.  8,  col.  6. 


The  Authors  of  Proposed  Legislation          17 

But  the  great  practical  difficulties  of  the  situation  militate 
against  this  exaltation  of  the  individual.  "Here  is  the  initia- 
tive .  .  .  under  which  every  citizen  is  given  a  glorious  oppor- 
tunity to  make  his  own  law.  But  does  he?  He  does,  if  he  will 
prepare  his  proposed  law,  circulate  petitions,  undertake  a  cam- 
paign of  education,  and  spend  his  time  and  money  in  getting 
favorable  consideration  for  his  measure."  l  As  a  matter  of  fact 
it  is  very  probable  that  no  measures  have  been  brought  before 
the  people  by  any  individual  without  some  sort  of  an  organi- 
zation behind  him.  But  the  individual  may  so  dominate  the 
organization  as  to  be  practically  identified  with  it.  This  is  the 
case  of  W.  S.  U'Ren,  "the  father  of  the  Oregon  System,"  espe- 
cially in  his  connection  with  the  People's  Power  League,  through 
which  much  legislation  of  the  greatest  importance  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  people.  "Now  Mr.  U'Ren  proposes  to  draft  a 
law  regulating  the  use  of  money  in  political  campaigns.  Will 
it  be  enacted?  Of  course  it  will.  In  Oregon  the  state  govern- 
ment is  divided  into  four  departments  —  the  executive,  judicial, 
legislative  and  Mr.  U'Ren  —  and  it  is  still  an  open  question 
which  exerts  the  most  power.  One  fact  must  be  considered 
in  making  comparisons :  That  the  legislature  does  not  dare  to 
repeal  the  acts  of  Mr.  U'Ren,  the  executive  has  no  power  to  veto 
them,  and  thus  far  the  judiciary  has  upheld  all  his  laws  and  con- 
stitutional amendments.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  U'Ren  has 
boldly  clipped  the  wings  of  the  executive  and  legislative  depart- 
ments, and  when  he  gets  time  -will  doubtless  put  some  shackles 
on  the  supreme  court.  To  date,  the  indications  are  that  Mr. 
U'Ren  outweighs  any  one,  and  perhaps  all  three,  of  the  other 
departments."  2  Especially  during  the  earlier  years  of  direct 
legislation  many  voted  for  "U'Ren  measures"  on  general  prin- 
ciple —  "all  U'Ren  measures  looked  alike  to  them."  But  with 
the  failure  of  some  of  the  more  radical  proposals  with  which  he 

1  Oregonian,  June  12,  igio,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

*  Ibid.,  July  17,  1906,  p.  8,  col.  4.  See  also  especially  ibid.,  Jan.  30,  1008,  p.  8, 
col.  2. 

C 


1 8     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

has  been  identified  in  more  recent  elections,  the  "eclipse  of  the 
law-giver"  is  proclaimed  by  his  opponents,  and  it  is  declared 
that  "the  day  of  personal  lawgiving  in  Oregon  is  passed."1 
No  other  individual  in  the  state  has  attained  any  such  promi- 
nence in  the  operation  of  direct  legislation. 

3.  Associations. 

Probably  every  measure  that  has  been  submitted  to  the 
people  has  had  some  form  of  organization  behind  it,  although  in 
some  cases  the  organization  has  been  rather  intangible  or  ineffec- 
tive. Most  such  organizations  have  been  constituted  tempo- 
rarily for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  initiation  or  reference  of  a 
particular  measure.  The  organizations  have  generally  assumed 
the  form  of  a  small  committee,  self-constituted,  or  representing 
a  larger  committee  or  "  mass  meeting  "  of  parties  interested.  But 
many  permanent  organizations  have  also  been  active  in  this 
direction.  Business  organizations  —  the  Brewers  and  Wholesale 
Liquor  Dealers'  Association,  the  Travelers'  Protective  Associa- 
tion, the  Employers'  Association,  commercial  clubs,  have  looked 
after  certain  interests.  A  railway  company,  casualty  insurance 
companies,  and  other  corporations  are  known  to  have  been,  or 
are  strongly  suspected  of  having  been,  the  real  authors  of  some 
measures.  The  Anti-Saloon  League,  the  Oregon  Woman's 
Suffrage  Association,  the  Oregon  State  Federation  of  Labor,  the 
Portland  Central  Labor  Council,  and  the  State  Grange  have 
concerned  themselves  with  measures  of  wider  interest.  But 
by  far  the  most  important  organized  influence  in  direct  legisla- 
tion has  been  the  People's  Power  League,  under  the  guidance 
of  W.  S.  U'Ren.  Most  of  the  reform  legislation  enacted  by  the 
people  has  been  submitted  by  this  organization.  The  Socialist 
Party  of  Oregon  initiated  a  measure  in  1914. 

4.  Radicals  and  Conservatives. 

The  adoption  of  the  system  of  direct  legislation  was  intended 
by  its  chief  supporter  to  furnish  "a  safe  and  practical  method 

1  Oregonian,  Jan.  21,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  2.     See  also  ibid.,  Nov.  5,  1914,  p.  10,  col.  2. 


The  Authors  of  Proposed  Legislation          19 

for  reformers  and  agitators"  to  get  a  decision  directly  from  the 
people.1  More  conservative  persons  feared  that  the  system 
would  fall  into  the  hands  of  "demagogues"  and  "faddists." 
"The  danger  in  the  present  innovation  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
most  radical  fanatic  may  and  will  assume  leadership  and  carry 
his  schemes  to  success  without  any  of  those  responsibilities  that 
attach  to  and  sober  representative  minds  in  a  representative  form 
of  government.  The  occupation  of  public  agitator  will  be  fos- 
tered and  exploited  by  the  vicious  demagogues  and  its  practice 
will  become  necessary  on  the  part  of  the  substantial  citizens  of 
the  county."  :  And  some  years  of  experience  with  the  sys- 
tem assured  conservatives  that  their  fears  had  been  well  founded. 
"There  are  numerous  political  fad  factions  in  Oregon  which 
at  every  election,  try  to  force  their  notions  on  the  people  by  the 
initiative  and  referendum.  Each  of  these  factions  is  a  minority. 
.  .  .  They  all  boost  the  initiative  and  referendum  because 
it  gives  them  their  only  access  to  legislation.  They  have  found 
themselves  pestiferous  annoyances  to  the  people  of  the  state, 
disturbers  of  the  political  peace  and  breeders  of  political  strife."  3 
And  measures  proposing  approaches  to  the  single-tax,  liquor 
prohibition,  woman's  suffrage,  control  of  corrupt  practices  at 
elections,  elimination  of  free  railway  passes,  the  direct  primary, 
proportional  representation,  the  recall,  an  easier  method  of  a 
amending  the  constitution,  the  people's  gazette  and  inspectors 
of  government,  the  abolition  of  the  state  senate,  etc.,  have  all 
alike  been  given  in  evidence  of  the  tendency  toward  "freak" 
legislation  under  the  system. 

However  unconvincing  most  of  this  evidence  may  generally 
appear,  it  is  certainly  true  that  conservatives  are  at  a  disadvan- 
tage in  direct  legislation.  "The  dice  are  loaded  against  them. 
The  various  radical  groups,  the  socialists,  the  single-taxers,  the 


1 W.  S.  U'Ren,  Operation  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Arena,  vol. 
32,  pp.  128,  131  (1904). 

2  G.  H.  Burnett,  Recent  Legislation,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association, 
1904-6,  PP-  17,  25  (1904). 

1  Oregonian,  Sept.  17,  1909,  p.  10,  col.  3. 


2O     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

woman  suffragists,  and  the  rest  will  sign  each  other's  petitions 
and  get  their  different  propositions  before  the  people.  When 
the  campaign  opens  the  radicals  are  already  organized.  They 
know  what  they  want,  and  they  will  cooperate  energetically  to 
secure  it.  But  the  conservatives  are  handicapped.  It  is  al- 
ways harder  to  organize  the  negative  than  the  affirmative.  And 
if  the  conservatives  defeat  distinctive  changes  in  the  funda- 
mental law  at  one  election,  they  cannot  rest  upon  their  arms. 
They  must  be  continually  upon  guard,  for  at  the  very  next  elec- 
tion the  same  battle  may  have  to  be  fought  over  again."  l 

1  F.  Foxcroft,  Initiative-Referendum  in  the  United  States,  Contemporary  Review, 
vol.  99,  pp.  II,  18  (1911). 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   MOTIVES  IN  LEGISLATION 

IT  had  been  hoped  that  the  system  of  direct  legislation  would 
escape  the  harmful  influence  of  selfish  special  and  local  interests 
to  which  the  general  welfare  has,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
always  been  sacrificed  in  legislative  assemblies.  But  from  prac- 
tical experience  it  is  found  that  attempts  to  accomplish  the 
promotion  of  selfish  ends  have  been  made  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent in  direct  legislation. 

From  a  consideration  of  all  the  measures  which  have  so  far 
appeared  on  the  ballot  it  appears  that  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases  the  proposal  or  opposition  of  measures  has  been  made  with 
a  view,  whether  or  not  mistaken,  to  promote  the  general  interests 
of  the  state.  The  interests  of  laborers  and  employers,  hardly 
less  wide,  have  caused  several  measures  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people. 

Special,  narrow  interests  have  operated  in  a  number  of  cases. 
The  first  attempts  to  use  the  referendum  were  made,  apparently, 
by  railway  interests  against  a  state  railway  project,  and  by  other 
special  interests  against  a  corporation  regulation  bill.  The  liquor 
interests  have  been  responsible  for  at  least  two  measures  on  the 
ballot.  The  owners  of  a  toll  road  filed  a  bill  providing  for  the 
purchase  of  the  road  by  the  state.  One  referendum  re- 
sulted from  a  conflict  between  a  sheriff  and  a  county  court. 
Apparently  some  special  interests  referred  the  public  utilities 
act  of  1912.  Disappointed  candidates  for  appointment  are  sus- 
pected to  have  been  behind  the  county  attorney  referendum, 
and  casualty  companies  and  "ambulance-chasing"  lawyers 
are  likewise  charged  with  holding  up  the  workmen's  compen- 


22     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

sation  act.  The  abortive  attempt  to  refer  the  dental  act  of  1913 
perhaps  came  from  "  advertising  "  dentists.  "  Painless  Parker's  " 
dental  bill  of  1914  was  submitted  solely  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing eligible  to  practice  a  dentist  who  could  not  otherwise  qualify. 
The  bill  of  the  same  year  for  the  abolition  of  the  office  of  corpora- 
tion commissioner  by  consolidation  of  the  corporation  and  in- 
surance departments  came  from  a  company  disgruntled  by  the 
commissioner's  refusal  to  permit  the  company  to  issue  some 
bonds.  The  bill  of  the  same  year  for  the  consolidation  of  the 
state  land  board  and  the  desert  land  board  was  likewise,  in  part 
at  least,  an  attack  upon  an  officer  who  was  obnoxious  to  the 
real  author  of  the  bill. 

Local  interests  have  been  the  cause  of  submitting  many  meas- 
ures to  the  voters.  The  majority  of  these  have  been  new-county 
or  county-boundary  bills,  eight  at  a  single  election,  submitted  to 
the  people  of  the  state  at  a  time  when  there  was  yet  no  provision 
for  determining  the  question  by  the  localities  affected.  The 
three  normal  schools,  whose  appropriations  had  been  cut  off 
by  the  legislature,  were  provided  for  in  three  bills  submitted  by 
people  of  their  respective  localities.1  The  conflicting  interests 
of  the  upper  and  lower  Columbia  river  fishermen  appeared  in 
their  two  conflicting  bills.  The  Rogue  river  fishing  bill  favored 
interests  of  the  upper  river  against  the  cannerymen  of  the  lower 
river.  The  freight-rate  bill  of  1912  was  initiated  by  the  inter- 
ested localities.  Local  interests  have  combined  with  others  in 
case  of  some  of  the  university  appropriation  referenda. 

Pernicious  log-rolling  and  blackmailing  among  localities  have 
appeared  to  some  extent  in  direct  legislation. 

A  comparatively  innocent  illustration  of  this  log-rolling  is  the 
initiative  bill  of  1912  for  the  division  of  counties  and  consolida- 
tion of  cities.  "The  bill  was  originated  in  Cottage  Grove,  which 
is  interested  in  county  division.  The  provisions  for  consolida- 

1  The  two  localities  which  were  defeated  at  the  election  succeeded  in  inducing 
the  legislative  assembly  to  resubmit  the  question  again  to  the  people  at  a  later 
election. 


The  Motives  in  Legislation  23 

tion  of  cities  are  in  the  interests  of  Seaside  and  St.  Johns.  The 
three  cities  have  pooled  their  interests  and  will  endeavor  to 
secure  the  help  of  other  cities  and  counties  interested  in  the 
provisions  of  the  bill."  l 

The  evil  possibilities  of  the  system  are  most  evident  in  case 
of  referenda  against  the  university  appropriations.  The  refer- 
endum of  1912  is  of  special  interest  in  this  connection.  "The 
origin  of  the  movement  to  refer  the  measure  in  question  is  not 
altogether  creditable  to  its  promoters.  The  state  university 
is  located  at  the  city  of  Eugene,  in  Lane  county.  Certain  citi- 
zens of  the  southern  portion  of  the  county,  including  the  city 
of  Cottage  Grove,  were  desirous  of  being  incorporated  into  a  new 
county,  with  Cottage  Grove  as  its  county  seat.  This  was 
strenuously  opposed  by  the  citizens  of  the  northern  part  of  the 
county,  and  particularly  by  those  of  Eugene,  and  the  measure 
was  defeated.  As  a  matter  of  retaliation,  or,  perhaps,  to  con- 
vince the  citizens  of  Eugene  that  their  city  and  its  inhabitants 
would  be  better  off  without  Cottage  Grove  in  the  same  county, 
this  movement  was  inaugurated."  2  After  a  fruitless  attempt 
to  "effect  a  deal  with  the  Eugene  people"  the  referendum  peti- 
tions were  filed.  At  the  following  session  of  the  legislature  the 
Cottage  Grove  interests  threatened  to  hold  up  the  university 
appropriations  again,  if  their  opponents  did  not  support  a 
general  county  division  bill  favored  by  Cottage  Grove.  Such 
support  was  given.  Local  newspapers  tell  the  rest  of  the  story. 
"A  much  different  feeling  prevails  here  now  than  did  two  years 
ago  when  Cottage  Grove  itself  started  the  referendum  on  the 
appropriations.  Since  then  Eugene  and  Cottage  Grove  have 
been  brought  closer  together  by  the  efforts  put  forth  in  behalf 
of  this  city  in  the  recent  legislature  by  the  Lane  county  delega- 
tion. Although  there  has  been  talk  of  going  after  some  of  the 
other  appropriations,  so  far  the  only  remarks  made  publicly 
concerning  the  university  appropriations  have  been  favorable 

1  Oregon  Journal,  July  5,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

2  Stale  v.  Olcott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  62,  pp.  277,  284  (1912). 


24     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

ones.  .  .  .  The  majority  seems  to  hope  that  such  occasions 
as  those  of  two  years  ago  will  not  again  be  deemed  expedient." l 
"Every  precinct  in  Cottage  Grove  voted  in  favor  of  the  uni- 
versity appropriations,  giving  evidence  of  a  friendly  feeling  that 
will  not  soon  be  forgotten  in  Eugene."  2 

In  1909  a  movement  to  refer  the  agricultural  college  appro- 
priation was  started  by  residents  of  Ashland,  the  seat  of  a  normal 
school,  to  coerce  the  members  of  the  legislative  assembly  from 
Benton  county,  the  seat  of  the  college,  to  support  an  appropria- 
tion for  the  normal  school,  but  the  movement  was  later  dropped. 
Other  such  attempts  have  been  made  or  threatened. 

The  motive  of  personal  spite  has  operated  in  direct  legislation, 
but  probably  only  to  a  very  limited  extent. 

Of  course  all  these  abuses  of  direct  legislation  have  met  with 
vigorous  protest.  "No  one  has  a  right  to  use  the  referendum 
for  revenge.  No  one  has  a  right  to  use  the  referendum  against 
one  bill  in  order  to  coerce  members  of  the  legislature  into  sup- 
porting another  bill.  Every  measure  should  stand  upon  its  own 
merits.  .  .  .  Trading  has  always  been  one  of  the  greatest  evils 
of  legislation  and  it  seems  that  we  are  to  have  it  even  under  the 
initiative  and  referendum." 3  Moreover,  this  is  very  dangerous 
business.  "Militancy  must  meet  with  militancy,  and  fire  with 
fire."  4  The  backers  of  the  referendum  of  the  portage  rail- 
way bill  were  threatened  with  retaliatory  legislation,  and  the 
circulation  of  the  referendum  petitions  ceased.  "Opponents  of 
the  portage  road  bill  may  yet  regret  the  day  when  they  and  their 
superserviceable  tools  inaugurated  the  referendum  movement 
against  it.  It  is  a  poor  rule  that  does  not  work  both  ways,  and 
the  initiative  is  sometimes  an  even  more  powerful  weapon  than 
the  referendum."  6  The  casualty  insurance  companies,  sus- 
pected of  part  of  the  responsibility  of  referring  the  workmen's 

1  Cottage  Grove  Sentinel,  reprinted  in  Eugene  Guard,  Apr.  n,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  a. 
1  Eugene  Register,  Nov.  8,  1013,  p.  4,  col.  2. 

3  Oregonian,  March  15,  IQOO,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

4  Eugene  Guard,  March  31,  igi3,  p.  4,  col.  i. 
*  Oregon  Journal,  May  15,  1903,  p.  4,  col.  i. 


The  Motives  in  Legislation  25 

compensation  act,  were  threatened  with  annihilation,  and  there 
are  other  such  cases.  "The  initiative  and  referendum  was  not 
intended  as  an  instrument  to  further  the  private  interests  of 
any  person  or  set  of  persons,  and  he  who  tries  so  to  use  it,  is 
juggling  with  a  two-edged  sword."  l 

It  is  safer  for  special  and  local  interests  to  adopt  the  opposite 
policy  and  come  to  each  other's  aid  in  obtaining  their  respective 
ends  by  the  method  of  log-rolling  long  practiced  in  legislative 
assemblies.  So  recently  we  find  the  supporters  of  a  state  insti- 
tution in  one  locality  becoming  zealous  advocates  of  the  interests 
of  a  state  institution  in  another  locality.  A  state  institution 
goes  to  great  lengths  to  secure  the  favorable  vote  of  the  labor 
interests,  and  the  labor  interests  demand  and  receive  substan- 
tial return.  A  resident  in  a  locality  where  a  state  institution  is 
established  is  urged  to  withdraw  her  candidacy  for  the  presidency 
of  a  woman's  club  for  fear  she  may  arouse  the  jealousy  of  rival 
candidates  and  their  supporters  from  other  localities  and  thus 
endanger  legislation  pending  for  that  institution.  And  other 
such  things  take  place.  "  Yet  we  have  been  told  that  the  Oregon 
System  would  put  an  end  to  the  ancient  and  dishonorable 
practice  of  legislative  log-rolling."  2 

But  the  ultimate  failure  of  most  of  these  movements  which 
have  been  actuated  by  selfish  special  or  local  interests  discourage 
such  abuses  of  the  system  of  popular  government.3 

1  C.  D.  Babcock,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  May  12,  1913,  p.  i,  col.  7. 

*0regonian,  Nov.  19,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  4.  "It  would  seem  that  [in  direct  legisla- 
tion] the  method  frequently  adopted  by  members  of  the  legislature  of  securing  votes 
for  the  passage  of  a  bill  by  promise  of  reciprocal  support  of  other  measures  could 
not  be  pursued."  State  v.  Richardson,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  48,  pp.  309,  319  (1906). 

3  Below,  pp.  113-5. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PREPARATION  OF  MEASURES 

THE  methods  of  preparing  initiative  measures  of  course  vary 
with  the  authorship  of  the  measures.  But  it  seems  that  usually 
the  principles  of  the  measure  are  determined  only  after  considera- 
tion by  a  number,  and  often  a  large  number  of  men,  and  that  the 
measure  is  put  into  final  form  by  practical  lawyers,  or  under 
their  advice.  The  study  and  care  given  to  the  preparation  of 
measures  are  different  in  different  cases.  Some  of  them  have 
been  prepared  within  a  very  limited  period.  Others  are  the  re- 
sult of  the  work  of  many  months. 

The  procedure  of  the  People's  Power  League  in  this  regard  is 
thus  described  by  one  of  its  members.  "The  method  of  the 
League  is  simple,  straightforward  and  open.  Some  member 
makes  a  suggestion  which  may  be  considered  worth  attention 
by  some  others.  On  the  lists  of  members  are  hundreds  who  may 
be  asked  to  give  their  ideas  upon  this  suggestion.  If  pretty 
generally  favorable  the  legal  form  is  gotten  up  and  publicity 
given.  Finally  a  committee  confers,  perhaps  several  times. 
The  proposed  measure  may  be  dropped  entirely.  It  may  be 
shelved  for  a  few  years.  If  the  sentiment  back  of  it  is  strong 
enough  to  secure  the  requisite  means  it  is  printed  and  put  out 
for  initiative  signatures.  Any  suggestions  made  by  friends  or 
enemies  are  carefully  considered.  Advice  is  asked  of  constitu- 
tional lawyers,  journalists,  teachers,  thinkers,  leaders  in  and 
out  of  the  League.  This  was  the  case  with  the  direct  primary 
law  that  has  done  so  much  to  bring  about  a  revolution  in  po- 
litical procedure  throughout  the  nation.  It  was  the  result  of  the 
ablest  thought  in  the  United  States  compiled  and  presented  by 

26 


The  Preparation  of  Measures  27 

the  People's  Power  League  and  its  secretary.  So  with  the  recall, 
proportional  representation,  corrupt  practices  act,  application 
of  direct  primary  to  election  of  delegates  to  national  conven- 
tions, and  other  measures."  x 

The  history  of  the  " blue-sky"  bill  is  thus  described  by  the 
man  chiefly  responsible  for  its  preparation.  "I  believe  it  was 
V.  Vincent  Jones  who  suggested  that  a  meeting  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  commercial  bodies  of  Portland  and  state  officers  be 
held  for  the  purpose  of  taking  some  definite  steps  to  better  con- 
ditions and  safeguard  the  small  investor.  This  meeting  was 
called  and  held  at  the  office  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  in 
Portland,  and  was  attended  by  representatives  of  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  Commercial  Club  and  Realty  Board  of  Portland, 
and  by  Governor  West,  Secretary  Olcott  and  the  writer.  The 
matter  was  discussed  at  some  length  and  a  plan  agreed  upon 
for  safeguarding  the  people  as  far  as  possible  until  adequate  leg- 
islation could  be  secured.  It  was  the  sense  of  the  meeting  that 
a  bill  similar  to  the  Kansas  blue  sky  law  should  be  prepared  and 
submitted  to  the  voters  at  the  November  election,  and  at  the 
request  of  the  Portland  commercial  bodies  the  secretary  of  state 
agreed  to  undertake  the  task  of  framing  the  bill.  The  writer 
considers  it  an  honor  to  have  been  connected,  in  a  humble  way, 
in  the  preparation  of  this  bill,  the  first  draft  of  which  was  com- 
pleted in  May,  1912,  and  immediately  submitted  to  the  board  of 
trustees  of  the  Portland  Chamber  of  Commerce,  through  its 
secretary,  Mr.  E.  C.  Giltner.  The  fact  that  the  bill  was  being 
prepared  had  been  reported  in  the  daily  press  and  many  of  the 
most  prominent  lawyers  and  business  men  in  Portland  took 
occasion  to  call  at  the  office  of  Mr.  R.  W.  Montague,  a  member 
of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  a  well- 
known  Portland  lawyer,  who  labored  zealously  to  perfect  the 
measure,  or  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Giltner,  to  examine  the  bill  and 
suggest  possible  improvements.  The  bill  formed  the  principal 
topic  of  discussion  at  a  meeting  of  the  Realty  Board,  where  it 
1  A.  D.  Cridge,  Oregon  Journal,  June  20,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  4. 


28     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

was  extensively  reviewed  by  ex-Senator  Fulton,  who  approved 
the  measure  in  the  main,  but  suggested  certain  changes,  most  of 
which  were  made  before  the  bill  was  finally  completed.  The  bill 
also  was  considered  at  a  meeting  of  the  Rotary  Club  and  I  believe 
was  discussed  by  other  organizations  in  Portland.  Before  the 
last  revision  had  been  made  the  entire  bill  was  rewritten  four  or 
five  times  and  some  parts  of  it  eight  or  ten  times,  and  not  less 
than  six  or  seven  meetings  of  the  representatives  of  the  com- 
mercial bodies  and  of  the  state  department  had  been  held."  1 

But  it  is  certain  that  such  careful  methods  are  not  always  used. 
Of  course  referendum  measures  involve  little  difficulty  in  prepara- 
tion. 

The  initiative  has  been  criticized  as  a  method  of  law-making 
because  the  measures,  proposed  not  by  "the  people"  or  their 
representatives,  but  by  individuals  or  groups  acting  upon  their 
own  responsibility,  are,  necessarily,  not  subject  to  any  amend- 
ment after  submission,  however  desirable  amendment  may  be, 
but  must  be  simply  accepted  or  rejected  as  they  are  by  the  people. 
"There  is  and  always  will  be  one  very  serious  difficulty  in  the 
enactment  of  laws  by  the  initiative  —  that  the  measure  cannot 
be  amended  after  it  has  once  been  framed  and  submitted.  It  is 
indeed  a  wise  man  or  body  of  men  who  can  draft  a  bill  without 
serious  defects.  Discussion  almost  invariably  discloses  an  error 
which  the  authors  of  the  bill  did  not  see.  But  once  a  proposed 
law  has  been  published  and  put  in  circulation  for  initiative 
signatures,  it  is  too  late  to  amend,  and  the  measure  must  stand 
or  fall,  the  good  with  the  bad."  2 

But,  fortunately,  in  comparison  with  practices  often  pre- 
vailing in  legislative  assemblies,  this  vice  sometimes  becomes  a 
real  virtue.  "Instead  of  being  a  cause  for  criticism,  this  is  one 
of  the  strongest  reasons  for  commendation,  for  we  have  learned 
that  one  of  the  most  common  methods  by  which  vicious  legis- 

1  C.  D.  Babcock,  Oregon  Journal,  Oct.  27,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  i. 
*  Oregonian,  Jan.  19,  1906,  p.  8,  col.  4.    See  also  ibid.,  May  7,  1910,  p.  10,  col.  2  ; 
June  12,  1910,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  2. 


The  Preparation  of  Measures  29 

lation  is  secured  is  to  introduce  a  harmless  or  a  beneficial  bill  and 
let  it  secure  a  favorable  report  from  a  legislative  committee,  but 
with  a  slight  amendment  inserted  therein  which  entirely  changes 
its  character  or  effect  in  some  important  particular  and  thereby 
serves  some  selfish  interest.  When  it  is  known  that  a  bill  must 
be  enacted  or  rejected  exactly  as  drawn,  the  framers  of  the 
measure  will  spend  weeks  and  months  studying  the  subject  and 
writing  the  bill  in  order  to  have  it  free  from  unsatisfactory  fea- 
tures." 1 

In  practice  something  like  amendment  of  proposed  legislation 
at  the  instance  of  the  people  is  at  times  attained.  This  is  true 
especially  in  the  case  of  measures  submitted  by  the  People's 
Power  League.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  League  to  distrib- 
ute copies  of  tentative  drafts  of  measures  widely  over  the  state 
in  order  to  sound  public  opinion  upon  them,  and  it  has,  in  accord- 
ance with  criticism  received,  essentially  modified  or  even  dropped 
measures  proposed.  The  State  Grange  has  pursued  a  similar 
course  with  some  measures.  Of  the  road  bill  prepared  by  the 
"harmony  committee"  in  1912  it  was  said :  "The  six  measures 
will  be  published  in  the  Portland  papers  Sunday.  Copies  will 
be  sent  to  all  papers  in  the  state.  In  this  manner  it  is  expected 
that  the  voters  will  study  them  carefully,  and  if  any  organized 
or  widespread  objection  is  raised  to  any  feature  of  the  several 
bills,  effort  will  be  made  to  eliminate  the  objectionable  part  or 
rectify  it  so  they  will  stand  a  better  chance  of  being  passed."  2 
But  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  the  general  public  hears  nothing 
of  the  measures  until  the  circulation  of  petitions  begins. 

Because  of  the  use  of  misleading  ballot  titles  by  some  parties 
filing  petitions,3  a  law  of  1907  requires  that  the  ballot  titles 
shall  be  prepared  by  the  attorney-general,  but  appeal  from  his 
action  may  be  taken  to  the  circuit  court.4 

1  J.  Bourne,  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  122, 
128  (1909).  *  Oregonian,  Mar.  22,  1912,  p.  14,  col.  2. 

3  Ibid.,  Jan.  21,  1907,  p.  9,  col.  i ;  W.  S.  U'Ren,  ibid.,  June  2,  1907,  p.  38,  col.  i ; 
G.  A.  Thacher,  Interesting  Election  in  Oregon,  Independent,  vol.  69,  pp.  1434,  1437-8 
(1910).  <  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  5;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  36;  below  pp.  52-3. 


30     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

"The  possibilities  of  the  adoption  of  crude  and  conflicting 
laws  .  .  .  might  be  guarded  against  ...  by  some  provision 
for  a  revision  and  editing  of  the  propositions  filed  for  submission 
to  the  people."  l  Accordingly  proposals  for  the  establishment 
of  some  kind  of  a  commission  for  this  purpose  have  been  made 
in  Oregon.2  But  such  an  authoritative  commission  could  practi- 
cally nullify  the  power  of  the  people  to  initiate  laws,3  and  the 
provision  at  best  would  but  further  complicate  an  already  over- 
complicated government. 

This  is  a  very  different  proposition  from  that  of  establishing 
some  advisory  office  or  commission  for  the  aid  of  individuals  or 
associations  in  the  drafting  of  bills.  The  state  library,  already 
furnishing  efficient  aid  by  way  of  information  to  individuals  and 
associations  in  connection  with  direct  legislation,  might  well  be 
further  developed  to  meet  this  need. 

In  view  of  both  advantages  and  disadvantages  which  are  in- 
herent in  the  formulation  of  measures  by  the  legislative  assembly 
on  the  one  hand  and  by  individuals  or  groups  on  the  other,  it 
has  been  proposed  to  adopt  the  plan,  already  in  use  elsewhere,  of 
requiring  all  initiative  measures  to  be  submitted  to  the  assembly, 
which  shall  either  enact  the  measure  into  law,  or  amend  it  and 
let  the  people  choose  between  the  original  and  the  amended 
measure.4 

1  F.  Foxcroft,  Initiative- Referendum  in  the  United  Slates,  Contemporary  Review, 
vol.  99,  pp.  ii,  17  (1911). 

2  House  Bills,  1911,  nos.  38,  112,  236;  Oregonian,  Dec.  4,  1914,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

*  See  especially  reports  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  16,  1911,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  Jan.  25,  1911,  p.  6, 
col.  i ;  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  25,  1911,  p.  i,  col.  i.  4  Below,  pp.  164-5. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  SUBSTANCE  AND  FORM  OF  MEASURES 

i 
The  Measures  Submitted  l 

i.  BY  far  the  largest  class  of  measures  submitted  to  the  people 
have  related  to  the  machinery  of  government. 

(1)  Initiative  constitutional  amendments  granting  the  suf- 
frage to  women  appeared  at  four  succeeding  elections,  and  later 
an  amendment  limiting  the  suffrage  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States  was  submitted  by  the  legislature. 

(2)  A  large  number  of  initiative  measures  intended  to  increase 
"the  people's  power"  have  been   submitted.    These  include 
the  direct  primary  bill,  the  bill  instructing  members  of  the 
legislative  assembly  to  vote  for  the  people's  choice  for  United 
States   senator,  and   the   presidential  primary  bill;    the  con- 
stitutional amendments  for  changing  the  method  applying  to 
constitutional  amendments  submitted  by  the  legislative  as- 
sembly and  requiring  calls  for  constitutional  conventions  to  be 
submitted  to  the  people,  "home  rule"  city  charters,  the  recall 
of  officers,  and  the  extension  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 
to  the  localities,  authorizing  legislation  for  proportional  repre- 
sentation  and   preferential   voting,   establishing   proportional 
representation  in  the  house  of  representatives,  abolishing  the 
state  senate,  two  amendments  for  the  entire  reorganization  of 
the  legislative  department  of  the  state,2  and  another  for  the  re- 
organization of  the  judicial  department,  the  bill  creating  "people's 
inspectors  of  government"  and  an  "official  gazette,"  and  the 

1  See  below,  pp.  241-53.  3  Below,  pp.  254-66. 

31 


32     Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

corrupt  practices  bill.  The  initiative  amendment  for  "  majority 
rule"  in  the  adoption  of  initiative  measures,  the  initiative 
amendment,  mentioned  below,  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  a  certain  article  of  the  constitution,  and  the 
initiative  pre-primary  convention  bill,  were  considered  attacks 
upon  "the  people's  power."  And  this  was  true  also  of  three 
measures  submitted  by  the  legislative  assembly  —  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  providing  for  "majority"  rule  in  the  adoption 
of  constitutional  amendments,  another  providing  for  separate 
districts  for  senators  and  representatives  (directed  against  pro- 
portional representation),  and  the  act  calling  for  a  constitutional 
convention. 

Two  other  initiative  bills  aimed  to  extend  the  system  of 
"home  rule"  —  one  providing  methods  for  creating  new  towns, 
counties,  and  municipal  districts,  and  changing  county  bound- 
aries, and  a  later  bill  providing  for  the  consolidation  of  cities  and 
the  organization  of  new  counties.  The  non-partisan  judiciary 
bill  was  another  reform  measure. 

(3)  A  third  class  of  measures  relates  to  the  creation  or  regula- 
tion of  public  offices  or  institutions  or  functions,  in  most  cases 
involving  the  expenditure  of  public  money. 

The  legislative  assembly  submitted  constitutional  amendments 
providing  for  the  increase  of  the  compensation  of  the  members 
of  the  assembly  —  twice,  for  the  reorganization  of  the  judicial 
system  and  addition  to  the  number  of  justices  of  the  supreme 
court,  for  the  creation  of  the  office  of  lieutenant  governor  — 
twice,  and  for  authorizing  the  organization  of  railroad  districts 
and  the  operation  of  railroads  by  the  state  and  localities,  an  act 
for  the  establishment  of  an  insane  asylum,  two  millage-tax  acts 
for  the  support  of  normal  schools,  and  some  constitutional 
amendments  not  involving  expenditure  of  money  —  for  the 
manner  of  location  of  state  institutions,  and  for  the  change  of 
date  of  general  elections.  The  two  amendments  submitted  by 
the  assembly  permitting  the  consolidation  of  cities  with  coun- 
ties, and  permitting  the  consolidation  of  adjoining  cities  favored 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        33 

the  reduction  of  the  number  of  offices.  A  constitutional 
amendment,  proposed  by  the  legislative  assembly,  increased  the 
maximum  limit  of  state  indebtedness  for  irrigation  and  water- 
power  operation  and  the  development  of  untilled  lands. 

An  initiative  amendment  provided  for  a  department  of  indus- 
try and  public  works,  mentioned  below.  Initiative  bills  have 
proposed  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  other  new  offices  — 
a  commission  on  employers'  liability,  mentioned  below,  a  state 
highway  department,  a  state  hotel  inspector,  "people's  inspec- 
tors" and  "official  gazette,"  mentioned  above,  a  corporation 
department,  mentioned  below,  a  state  road  board,  with  provi- 
sion for  road  bonds,  and  a  tax-code  commission.  The  eight 
initiative  county-division  bills  (two  other  initiative  county  bills 
involved  only  changes  of  boundaries)  of  course  involved  the 
multiplication  of  offices,  and  this  was  also  involved  in  the  general 
measures,  mentioned  above,  providing  for  the  creation  of  new 
counties  and  districts.  But  one  of  the  latter  contained  a  provi- 
sion for  the  consolidation  of  cities,  and  thus  favored  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  number  of  offices.  The  two  companion  initiative 
measures  —  the  public  docks  and  water-front  amendment,  and 
the  municipal  wharves  and  docks  bill,  —  while  permitting  the 
lease  of  the  beds  of  navigable  waters  for  private  docks,  vested 
the  ownership  of  the  submerged  land  in  the  state,  and  au- 
thorized the  ownership  and  operation  of  wharves  and  docks 
by  the  municipalities.  The  proposal  for  the  state's  purchase 
of  a  toll  road  was  contained  in  an  initiative  bill.  Another  initia- 
tive bill  provided  for  a  millage  tax  for  the  university  and  the 
agricultural  college  and  for  the  consolidation  of  the  government 
of  the  two  institutions.  Two  others  authorized  the  issue  of 
county  road  bonds.  One  constitutional  amendment  submitted 
by  initiative  petition  increased  the  maximum  limit  of  county 
indebtedness  for  roads,  and  another  granted  "home  rule"  to 
counties  in  the  matter  of  indebtedness  for  roads. 

The  regulation  of  the  office  (especially  the  compensation)  of 
the  state  printer  was  the  purpose  of  the  initiation  of  one  constitu- 


34     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

tional  amendment  and  two  bills.  One  initiative  bill  provided 
for  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  state  offices  by  the  consolida- 
tion of  the  desert  land  board  and  the  state  land  board.  The 
elimination  of  offices  involved  in  another  initiative  bill  for  the 
consolidation  of  the  corporation  and  insurance  departments 
was  offset  by  its  creation  of  the  office  of  state  fire  marshal.  Two 
constitutional  amendments  submitted  by  initiative  petition 
limited  state  and  county  indebtedness  for  roads.  The  initiative 
bill  providing  for  the  increase  of  the  term  of  certain  county 
offices  should  also  be  included  with  economy  legislation. 

Referendum  petitions  placed  on  the  ballot  the  act  for  addi- 
tional districts  attorneys  and,  mentioned  below,  the  workmen's 
compensation  act  (creating  an  industrial  commission  and  in- 
dustrial fund),  one  general  appropriation  act,  an  armory  appro- 
priation, five  university  appropriations,  and  an  act  requiring 
of  a  county  the  appropriation  for  an  increase  of  the  salary  of  the 
circuit  judge. 

(4)  Methods  of  taxation  have  been  the  subject  of  many 
measures.  The  legislative  assembly  has  submitted  seven  "  tax- 
reform"  constitutional  amendments  (substantially  the  same 
measures  were  resubmitted  in  some  cases)  —  repealing  the  con- 
stitutional requirement  of  equal  and  uniform  taxation,  amend- 
ing this  requirement,  authorizing  the  levy  of  state  and  local  taxes 
on  separate  classes  of  property,  and  another  amendment  except- 
ing laws  regulating  taxation  or  exemption  from  "emergency" 
legislation  and  repealing  the  provisions  of  the  initiative  "con- 
stitutional home-rule"  amendment,  mentioned  below.  Other 
measures  dealing  with  the  administration  of  taxation  have 
been  submitted  by  initiative  petition.  These  include  two  cor- 
poration-tax bills,  two  modified  "single- tax"  constitutional 
amendments,  a  constitutional  amendment  providing  for  the 
abolition  of  the  poll  tax,  requiring  all  laws  regulating  taxation 
or  exemption  from  taxation  throughout  the  state  to  be  referred 
to  the  people,  exempting  from  constitutional  restrictions  all 
measures  approved  by  the  people  declaring  what  shall  be  sub- 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        35 

ject  to  taxation  or  exemption  and  how  it  shall  be  taxed  or  ex- 
empted, and  authorizing  each  county  to  regulate  taxation  and 
exemption  subject  to  the  general  laws  of  the  state  (the  "  county 
home-rule"  amendment),  a  constitutional  amendment  per- 
mitting the  taxation  of  incomes,  another  providing  for  a  gradu- 
ated "extra  tax"  on  land,  another  ("anti-single-tax")  retaining 
the  "equal  and  uniform"  taxation  requirement  of  the  constitu- 
tion, permitting  certain  exemptions  from  taxation,  and  for- 
bidding the  amendment  or  repeal  of  this  amendment  except  by 
a  two-thirds  vote  of  all  electors  voting  on  the  issue ;  and  bills 
providing,  respectively,  for  the  exemption  of  household  goods 
from  taxation,  for  the  exemption  of  money  and  credits  from 
taxation,  for  the  exemption  from  taxation  of  goods  and  im- 
provements on  land  held  by  any  one  person  to  the  extent  of  fif- 
teen hundred  dollars  valuation,  for  revising  the  inheritance  tax 
laws,  and  mentioned  above,  for  a  tax-code  commission. 

2.  Protective  functions  of  the  state  have  been  the  concern  of 
a  number  of  measures. 

(1)  Six  measures  related  to  the  administration  of  the  crimi- 
nal law.     Of  these,  two  were  initiative  bills  —  one  prohibiting 
the  employment  of  state  and  local  prisoners  by  private  persons 
and  authorizing  their  employment  by  the  state  and  counties, 
and  the  other  abolishing  capital  punishment  and  regulating 
the  pardoning  power.     Two  were  constitutional  amendments 
initiated  by  petition  —  one  providing  for  indictment  by  grand 
jury,  and  the  other  abolishing  capital  punishment.     The  others 
were  acts  referred  by  petition  —  one  providing  for  the  custody 
of  persons  in  county  jails  by  the  sheriff,  authorizing  the  county 
court  to  direct  the  work  of  the  prisoners,  and  regulating  the  sal- 
aries of  guards  and  the  prices  of  prisoners'  meals  in  one  county, 
and  the  other  providing  for  the  sterilization  of  habitual  crimi- 
nals and  other  degenerates. 

(2)  Seven  initiative  measures  were  concerned  with  the  liquor 
traffic  —  three  bills  and  one  constitutional  amendment  dealing 
with  "local  option"  (one  of  them  also  providing  for  local  regula- 


3 6     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

tion  of  pool  rooms,  etc.),  and  two  amendments  and  one  bill  pro- 
viding for  state-wide  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic. 

(3)  One  initiative  bill  regulated  the  licensing  of  dentists  (by 
lowering  the  standards). 

(4)  Provisions  affecting  corporations  and  other  "interests" 
were  contained  in  five  initiative  bills.    The  two  corporation- 
tax  bills  above  mentioned  are  included  here.     One  bill  prohibited 
the  issue  of  free  passes  and  discrimination  by  railroads  and 
other  public-service  corporations,  another,  the  "blue-sky"  bill, 
which  provided  for  the  corporation  department  mentioned  above, 
regulated  corporations   dealing  with  corporate  securities,  and 
another  regulated  freight  rates.    The  legislative  assembly  sub- 
mitted a  constitutional  amendment  providing  for  double  liabil- 
ity of  bank  stockholders.    Two  acts  of  the  assembly  regulating 
corporations  were  referred  by  petition  —  one  requiring  railroads 
and  other  common  carriers  to  grant  free  passes  to  certain  public 
officials,  and  the  other  providing  for  the  control  of  public-service 
corporations.     Three  initiative  bills  affected  the  fishing  interests 
connected  with  the  Columbia  and  Rogue  rivers. 

3.  Some  aspects  of  social  legislation  were  covered  by  a  third 
class  of  measures.  Most  of  these  had  to  do  with  the  interests  of 
labor.  Three  initiative  bills  and  two  initiative  amendments 
favored  the  labor  interests  —  the  employers'  liability  bill,  bills 
for  an  eight-hour  day  on  public  works,  for  an  eight-hour  day  and 
ventilation  of  working  rooms  for  female  workers,  and  amend- 
ments, one  for  a  universal  eight-hour  day,  and  the  other  for  a 
department  of  industry  and  public  works  (mentioned  above) 
for  the  benefit  of  the  unemployed.  Three  initiative  bills  were 
hostile  to  the  labor  interests:  the  bill  providing  for  a  com- 
mission for  the  investigation  of  the  subject  of  employers'  liabil- 
ity (mentioned  above)  —  a  substitute  for  the  employers'  liability 
bill;  another  prohibiting  boycotting  or  picketing  workshops, 
etc.,  and  another  prohibiting  in  the  larger  towns  the  use  of  streets, 
etc.,  for  public  meetings  or  discussions  without  the  consent  of 
the  mayor.  The  workmen's  compensation  act,  mentioned  above, 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        37 

was  referred  by  petition.  Social  legislation  was  also  of  course 
the  aim  of  some  of  the  taxation  measures  mentioned  above. 

4.  Ten  measures  dealing  strictly  with  local  interests  were 
the  eight  county-division  measures  and  the  two  county-boundary 
measures,  initiated  by  petition. 

Under  present  conditions  the  measures  initiated  by  petition 
and  those  referred  by  petition  are  no  index  whatever  to  public 
opinion  in  this  direction,  but  that,  so  far  as  indicated,  is  in- 
dicated rather  by  the  vote  at  the  election.1 


Suitable  and  Unsuitable  Subjects 

There  has  been  much  discussion  in  Oregon  as  to  the  subjects 
proper  for  direct  legislation.  In  the  first  place  attempt  at  dis- 
tinction has  been  made  between  propositions  which  are  "ele- 
mental," "along  fundamental  lines,"  or  "political"  in  charac- 
ter on  the  one  hand,  and  propositions  which  are  "  non-elemental," 
"not  along  fundamental  lines,"  "administrative,"  or  " technical " 
in  character  on  the  other.  "It  is  evident  that  in  cases  where 
the  question  is  one  of  general  policy  or  principle,  on  which  he 
[the  voter]  can  express  himself  by  a  yes  or  no  vote,  the  best 
judgment  and  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  may  be  secured. 
In  cases,  however,  where  the  measure  consists  of  many  intricate 
and  involved  provisions,  the  fact  that  there  can  be  no  opportu- 
nity of  amendment,  or  any  guarantee  that  the  measure  will  be 
read,  or  fully  comprehended  in  all  its  bearings  points  to  a  danger 
in  this  mode  of  securing  legislation."  2  "The  mass  of  men  will 
not  study  a  law  which  is  of  abstract  interest,  or  of  great  length 
and  legal  technicality,  .  .  .  and  therefore  it  seems  to  me  the 
people  will  not  vote  intelligently  on  any  but  clear-cut,  briefly 
stated  questions,  such  as  approach  the  character  of  fundamental 

1  Below,  pp.  105-25. 

*  C.  H.  Carey,  New  Responsibilities  of  Citizenship,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar 
Association,  1908-10,  pp.  18,  30  (1909). 


38     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

constitutional  provisions."  1  And  it  has  been  suggested  that, 
in  view  of  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  proper  preparation 
of  measures  of  the  latter  class  as  well  as  the  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  their  proper  consideration  by  the  voters,  such  measures 
should  either  not  be  allowed  to  be  submitted  under  the  in- 
itiative at  all,  or  only  after  demand  and  refusal  by  the  legis- 
lature;2 that  the  initiative  should  be  used  to  secure  a  vote 
only  on  the  general  policy  advocated  and  not  on  a  formal  bill 
submitted.3 

An  extreme  illustration  of  technical  legislation  is  the  initia- 
tive freight-rate  law  of  1912,  covering  a  subject  for  the  con- 
sideration of  which  not  even  legislatures  are  adapted,  much 
less  the  people.  "  When  the  Medford  Traffic  Bureau  proposes  to 
resort  to  the  initiative  to  fix  railroad  rates  it  is  suggesting  the 
use  of  an  implement  for  a  purpose  for  which  it  is  unwieldy, 
wholly  unadapted,  and  certain  to  prove  unsatisfactory.  The  in- 
itiative is  properly  the  means  of  correcting  abuses  or  providing 
betterments  that  are  understood  and  recognized  by  the  ordinary 
voter  and  denied  them  by  the  legislature.  .  .  .  Railroad  rate- 
making  calls  for  the  exercise  of  an  abstruse  and  complicated 
science.  The  exercise  of  the  initiative  should  call  only  for  ordi- 

1  C.  E.  S.  Wood,  quoted  by  L.  Pease,  Initiative  and  Referendum  —  "Oregon's  Big 
Stick,"  Pacific  Monthly,  vol.  17,  pp.  563,  575  (1907). 

*  E.g.  Oregonian,  Jan.  19,  1906,  p.  8,  col.  4;  Oct.  3,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i;  Eugene 
Register,  May  26,  1912,  p.  i,  col.  i.  Below,  pp.  164-5.  "The  powers  defined  herein 
as  the  'initiative'  and  'referendum'  shall  never  be  used  to  pass  a  law  authorizing  any 
classification  of  property  for  the  purpose  of  levying  different  rates  of  taxation  thereon 
or  of  authorizing  the  levy  of  any  single  tax  on  land  or  land  values  or  land  sites  at  a 
higher  rate  or  by  a  different  rule  than  is  or  may  be  applied  to  improvements  thereon 
or  to  personal  property."  Ohio  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  i  (1912). 

1  "Let  the  vote  of  the  people  be  a  command  to  make  a  law,  not  the  law  itself. 
For  instance,  instead  of  submitting  to  the  vote  of  the  people  a  number  of  voluminous 
and  conflicting  laws  on  the  subject  of  good  roads,  let  the  subject  be  submitted  in  this 
way: 

"No.  i.     Shall  the  state  aid  in  the  construction  of  highways? 

"No.  2.  Shall  the  counties  be  authorized  to  issue  bonds  for  the  construction  of 
highways? 

"If  both  these  propositions  were  adopted  by  the  people,  then  the  next  legislature 
must  carry  them  into  effect  by  proper  legislation  and  the  details  would  be  worked 


The  Substance  and  Form  of   Measures        39 

nary  or  general,  not  unusual  or  specialized,  intelligence.  The 
adoption  of  a  table  of  maximum  distance  class  rates  would  not 
be  accomplished  without  appeals  to  prejudice  against  corpora- 
tions, without  the  influence  of  rivalry  between  communities  or 
without  the  expression  of  opinions  by  the  mass  of  arbiters  on  an 
issue  of  which  they  had  no  thorough  understanding.  It  was  so 
when  in  other  days  the  legislature  attempted  ratemaking  and 
because  it  was  so  quasi- judicial  and  semi-legislative  powers  were 
delegated  to  a  railroad  commission  after  insistent  demands 
by  the  people.  ...  If  Medford  and  other  interior  cities  have 
a  railroad  rate  grievance  there  is  a  properly  constituted  and 
thoroughly  equipped  body  to  which  it  may  be  presented  and  that 
body  is  the  railroad  commission,  not  the  public.  If  the  railroad 
commission  is  prejudiced,  neglectful  or  incompetent  the  thing 
to  do  is  to  change  the  commission.  To  ask  the  people  to  decide 
distributive  rate  controversies  is  preposterous."  l  Soon  after  its 
approval  at  the  election  the  law  was  declared  unconstitutional 
by  a  federal  court.2  "The  outcome  should  be  a  lesson.  There 
is  no  use  to  try  to  make  a  railroad  commission  out  of  the  elec- 
torate. The  people  cannot  qualify  as  a  mass  to  pass  upon  a 
system  of  railroad  rates ;  and  it  is  both  foolish  and  inexcusable 
to  bother  them  with  such  measures." 3 

out  after  open  discussion  and  consideration.  Such  legislation  would  be  subject  to 
the  referendum  and  to  subsequent  amendment  in  the  usual  way.  The  great 
trouble  with  the  present  law  is  that  it  requires  the  voter  to  consider  a  thousand  de- 
tails which  he  knows  nothing  about  and  which  he  does  not  consider,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  and  could  not  alter  if  he  did.  It  would  be  quite  as  reasonable  for  a  com- 
munity to  turn  out  en  masse  and  try  to  build  a  town  hall.  The  majority  might 
be  in  favor  of  the  building  of  a  town  hall,  but  very  few  would  know  how  to  build  it. 
What  the  community  should  do  is  first  to  determine  that  they  want  a  town  hall 
and  then  employ  mechanics  to  do  the  work.  Let  the  people  order  the  kind  of  laws 
they  want  and  require  the  legislature  to  fill  the  order.  Our  present  system  produces 
confusion,  promotes  litigation  and  unsettles  business."  A.  S.  Hammond,  Oregonian, 
Jan.  13,  1013,  p.  6,  col.  6.  But  past  experiences  with  constitutional  requirements 
for  legislation  along  lines  specified  in  general  terms  is  conclusive  evidence  that  such 
a  plan  is  not  at  all  sufficient.  However,  see  below,  pp.  157-8. 

1  Oregonian,  Sept.  2,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i. 

*  Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Railroad  Commission  of  Oregon,  Federal  Reporter,  vol. 
208,  p.  926  (1913).  *  Oregon  Journal,  Sept.  30,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i. 


40     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  matters  of  local  interest  are  not 
suitable  subjects  for  submission  to  the  voters  of  the  state.  This 
has  been  discussed  particularly  in  connection  with  the  numerous 
measures  for  county  divisions.  "The  Register  knows  nothing 
of  the  merits  of  this  particular  plan  for  division,  nor  does  it  es- 
pecially care  to.  It  is  a  local  matter  purely  and  simply,  and  is  of 
interest  only  to  the  territory  concerned,  within  and  without  the 
new  boundaries.  The  rest  of  the  people  of  the  state  do  not  care 
whether  a  new  county  is  formed  or  not,  and  should  not  be  asked 
to  make  a  decision."  l 

In  case  of  the  referendum,  if  the  previous  action  of  the  legis- 
lative assembly  is  to  be  considered  worthy  of  any  respect  at  all, 
the  difficulties  in  dealing  with  unsuitable  subjects  are  not  so 
great,  but  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  referendum  might  be 
restricted  "  to  particular  classes  of  acts,  to  be  carefully  defined,"  2 
and  especially  it  has  been  urged  that  appropriation  bills  are  not 
proper  subjects  for  review  by  the  people. 

Doubtless  measures,  and  especially  initiative  measures,  that 
are  not  "elemental"  in  character  should  not  be  submitted  to 
the  people  except  in  case  of  great  urgency,  but  all  schemes  for  a 
classification  of  measures  by  law  in  this  connection  are  utterly 
impracticable,  and  the  "protest"  of  the  voters  must  remain  the 
only  check  against  the  submission  of  improper  subjects  for  direct 
legislation. 

There  are  no  authoritative  tests  for  the  determination  of  the 
distinctions  between  suitable  and  unsuitable  subjects  for  direct 
legislation  above  discussed,  and  of  course  in  the  application  of 
the  theoretical  distinctions  to  a  classification  of  the  measures 
actually  submitted  to  the  voters  there  must  be  a  difference  of 
opinion.  However,  it  would  seem  that  probably  something  less 
than  half  of  the  measures  submitted  would  generally  be  consid- 
ered clearly  "elemental"  in  character,3  including  especially  such 

1  Eugene  Register,  Oct.  12,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i.  See  also  Oregonian,  Aug.  i,  1910, 
p.  6,  col.  i.  *  Oregonian,  July  21,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

5  Much  lower  estimates  have  been  made  by  some  observers. 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        41 

measures  as  the  various  prohibition  measures,  the  suffrage  amend- 
ments, the  anti-pass  bill,  the  majority-vote  amendments,  the 
flat-salary  bill,  the  non-partisan  judiciary  bill,  etc.1  A  number 
of  other  measures,  including  the  direct  primary  bill,  the  corrupt- 
practices  bill,  the  employer's  liability  bill,  the  workmen's  com- 
pensation act,  etc.,  contain  an  "elemental"  principle  readily 
understood,  but  at  the  same  time  contain  a  mass  of  "adminis- 
trative" or  even  "technical"  details.  The  direct  primary  bill, 
of  forty-six  sections,  covered  forty-eight  pages  of  the  voters' 
pamphlet;  the  corrupt-practices  bill,  of  fifty-three  sections, 
covered  nineteen  pages;  the  workmen's  compensation  act,  of 
thirty-four  sections,  covered  over  thirteen  pages.  Moreover 
some  of  these  measures  were  in  part  highly  technical.  The 
numerous  measures  dealing  with  the  subject  of  taxation  form 
another  class,  in  which  fundamental  policy  is  involved  in  at  least 
some  cases,  and  especially  in  case  of  the  approaches  to  the 
"single-tax,"  although  in  most  cases  the  measures  should  prob- 
ably be  classified,  in  whole  or  in  part,  as  administrative.  One 
was  highly  technical.  Another  group  of  measures,  including 
the  county-prisoners'  bill,  the  several  fishery  bills,  the  judiciary 
amendments  (to  a  considerable  extent),  the  freight-rate  bill, 
the  "blue-sky"  bill,  etc.,  are  more  clearly  "administrative," 
and  in  some  cases  very  technical.  Of  the  numerous  appropria- 
tions bills  some  should  be  considered  as  purely  administrative, 
but  others  were  submitted  chiefly  or  partly  in  order  to  determine 
questions  of  general  policy.  Most  of  the  measures  of  a  local 
character  have  been  new-county  bills. 

Over  two  fifths  of  all  of  the  measures  submitted  have  called 
for  constitutional  amendment.  So  far  there  has  been  little  in- 
clination to  offer  ordinary  legislation  in  the  form  of  constitu- 
tional provisions.2 

1  But  some  measures,  of  which  the  home-rule  charter  amendment  is  a  good  ex- 
ample, on  the  face  very  elementary  in  character,  have  been  found  later  to  involve 
far-reaching  complications.  Cf.  F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory 
Results  under  Initiative  Amendments  of  the  Oregon  Constitution  (1910). 

8  Below,  pp.  180-1. 


42     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


3 
Deception  in  Measures 

There  has  been  much  complaint  about  the  presence  of 
"jokers"  in  initiative  measures,  but  often  the  alleged  "joker" 
has  been  simply  some  part  of  a  measure  obnoxious  to  the 
hostile  critic.  However,  measures  have  not  always  been  what 
they  seemed.  The  instance  usually  cited  in  illustration  is  that 
of  a  taxation  amendment  of  igio.1  This  amendment  begins, 
"No  poll  or  head  tax  shall  be  levied  or  collected  in  Oregon," 
and  then  provides  that  "no  bill  regulating  taxation  or  exemption 
throughout  the  state  shall  become  a  law  until  approved  by  the 
people  of  the  state,"  that  "  none  of  the  restrictions  of  the  con- 
stitution shall  apply  to  measures  approved  by  the  people  de- 
claring what  shall  be  subject  to  taxation  or  exemption  or  how  it 
shall  be  taxed  or  exempted  " ;  and  that  "  the  people  of  the  several 
counties  are  hereby  empowered  and  authorized  to  regulate  taxa- 
tion and  exemptions  within  their  several  counties,  subject  to 
any  general  laws  which  may  be  hereafter  enacted."  The  pur- 
pose of  the  three  last  provisions  was  to  "pave  the  way"  for  the 
single-tax,  allowing  the  individual  counties  to  adopt  such  tax 
and  preventing  the  legislature  from  changing  the  "home-rule" 
system.  The  poll-tax  provision  was  clearly  "  bait "  to  catch  votes 
for  the  other  provisions  of  the  measure.  But  the  much-re- 
peated assertion  that  this  provision  was  wholly  deceptive  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  poll  tax  had  been  abolished  several 
years  before  is  untrue.  The  state  one-dollar  poll  tax  had  been 
abolished,  but  the  three-dollar  county  road  poll  tax  was  still 
in  force,  although  practically  obsolete  in  some  parts  of  the  state. 

In  other  cases  voters  have  unintentionally  aided  in  enacting 
legislative  provisions  which  they  have  not  favored,  but  this 
has  been  due  not  so  much  to  the  presence  of  "jokers"  in  the 
measures  as  to  the  form  in  which  amendments  have  been  drawn, 

1  Constitution,  art.  9,  sec.  la  (1910) ;  amended  in  1912. 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        43 

to  deceptive  or  inadequate  ballot  titles,  or,  probably  by  far  the 
most  often,  to  the  inadvertence  of  the  voters.1 

It  has  been  broadly  asserted  that  authors  of  measures  "put 
an  attractve  label  on  a  bill  which  contains  little  that  is  good 
and  a  great  deal  which  is  radical  and  bad ;  and  the  people,  de- 
ceived by  the  label,  swallow  the  bill  as  a  mass  on  the  faith  of  the 
label."2  But,  although  "catchy"  titles  may  have  been  used, 
attempts  at  actual  deception  have  probably  been  very  few. 
Much  complaint  was  made  against  the  liquor  interests'  "  amend- 
ment to  the  local  option  law  giving  anti-prohibitionists  and 
prohibitionists  equal  privileges,"  which,  it  was  considered,  would 
practically  abolish  local  option ;  the  bill  initiated  by  the  owners 
of  a  toll  road  "  to  abolish  tolls  on  the  Mount  Hood  and  Barlow 
road,  and  providing  for  its  ownership  by  the  state,"  in  fact  pro- 
viding for  the  purchase  of  the  road  by  the  state,  and  the  "  tax- 
payers' suffrage  amendment,"  which  in  fact  gave  the  suffrage 
to  women  whether  taxpayers  or  not.  It  was  to  eliminate  mis- 
leading titles  that  the  power  to  formulate  the  ballot  titles  of 
measures  was  taken  from  the  authors  and  given  to  the  attorney- 
general.3 

The  constitutional  requirement  that  "  every  act  shall  embrace 
but  one  subject  and  matters  properly  considered  therewith, 
which  subject  shall  be  expressed  in  the  title,"  4  was  intended,  in 
part,  to  obviate  the  legislative  practice  of  "inserting  in  an  act 
clauses  involving  matter  which  the  title  is  not  calculated  or  ade- 
quate to  give  or  convey  any  intimation."  It  was  intended  that 
the  legislature  should  thus  be  fairly  apprised  of  the  purpose  of  a 
measure  by  an  inspection  of  the  title  and  not  be  "surprised  or 
misled  by  the  subject  which  the  title  purported  to  express."6 

1  Below,  pp.  51-3,  107-13. 

3  W.  Minor,  Closing  Address,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10, 
pp.  166,  175.  *  Above,  p.  29;  below,  pp.  52-3.  4  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  20  (1859). 

*  Clemmensen  v.  Petersen,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  35,  pp.  47, 48  (1899).  See  also  State 
v.  Shaw,  ibid.,  vol.  22,  pp.  287,  288  (1892) ;  Bailey  v.  Benton  Co.,  ibid.,  vol.  61,  pp. 
390,  394  (1912)-  "When  two  or  more  amendments  shall  be  submitted  ...  to  the 
voters  of  the  state,  at  the  same  election,  they  shall  be  so  submitted  that  each  amend- 


44     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

This  requirement  does  not  apply  to  direct  legislation.1  But, 
although  often  its  purpose  is  not  achieved  in  the  action  of  the 
legislative  assembly,  the  extension  of  the  provision  to  direct 
legislation  would  at  least  aid  in  preventing  the  use  of  misleading 
titles  in  direct  legislation. 

4 

The  Combination  of  Subjects  in  Measures 

The  constitutional  provision  just  noticed2  was  intended, 
further,  to  discourage  log-rolling  in  the  legislative  assembly  —  to 
prevent  the  practice  of  "  combining  subjects  representing  diverse 
interests,  in  order  to  unite  the  members  of  the  legislature  who 
favored  either,  in  support  of  all."  3  "Thus,  it  was  designed  by 
the  framers  of  the  constitution  that  in  every  case  the  proposed 
measure  should  stand  upon  its  own  merits."  4 

The  restriction  has  been  rather  ineffective  in  properly  control- 
ling the  legislative  assembly  but  even  an  ideal  legal  standard  is 
wholly  wanting  for  direct  legislation.6  At  any  rate  it  has  hap- 

ment  shall  be  voted  on  separately."  Constitution,  art.  17,  sec.  2  (1906).  Cf.  Con- 
stitution, art.  17,  sec.  2  (i8sg). 

1  Palmer  v.  Benson,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  50,  pp.  277,  279  (1007) ;  State  v.  Lang- 
wortky,  ibid.,  vol.  55,  pp.  303, 309  (1910).  Contra,  State  v.  Richardson,  ibid.,  vol.  48, 
PP-  309,  318  (1906).  2  Above,  p.  43. 

*  State  v.  Shaw,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  22,  pp.  287,  288  (1892). 

4  Clemmensen  v.  Pelersen,  ibid.,  vol.  35,  pp.  47,  48  (1899).  See  also  Simpson  v. 
Bailey,  ibid.,  vol.  3,  pp.  515,  517  (1869) ;  Slate  v.  Richardson,  ibid.,  vol.  48,  pp.  309, 
318  (1906) ;  Palmer  v.  Benson,  ibid.,  vol.  50,  pp.  277,  279  (1907) ;  Bailey  v.  Benton 
Co.,  ibid.,  vol.  61,  pp.  390,  394  (1912). 

*  Palmer  v.  Benson,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  50,  pp.  277,  279  (1907);   Stale  v.  Lang- 
worthy,  ibid.,  vol.  55,  pp.  303,  309  (1910).    Contra,  State  v.  Richardson,  ibid.,  vol.  48, 
pp.  309,  318  (1906).    Cf.  W.  P.  Malburn,  Can  Two  Propositions  be  Submitted  to  One 
Vote?    American  Law  Review,  vol.  47,  pp.  392-431  (1913). 

"When  a  law  comprised  very  various  provisions  relating  to  matters  essentially 
different,  it  was  called  lex,  salura,  and  the  Lex  Cacilia  Didia  [B.C.  98]  forbade  the 
proposing  of  a  lex  satura,  on  the  ground  that  the  people  might  be  compelled  either 
to  vote  for  something  which  they  did  not  approve,  or  to  reject  something  which  they 
did  approve,  if  it  was  proposed  in  this  manner."  Yonge,  note  to  Cicero's  Orations, 
Yonge's  trans.,  vol.  3,  p.  21.  Cf.  Finley  and  Sanderson,  American  Executive,  pp. 
64-5  (1908). 


The  Substance  and  Form  of   Measures        45 

pened  that  sometimes  measures  of  direct  legislation  do  not 
stand  on  their  own  merits,  that  several  and  even  very  many 
propositions  may  be  combined  into  one  measure  in  order  to 
secure  as  many  supporters  as  possible. 

But  this  abuse  has  actually  occurred  in  only  a  few  cases. 
The  combination  of  the  poll  tax,  county  "home-rule"  taxation, 
and  other  propositions  has  already  been  described.1  The 
amendment  by  which  this  was  repealed  was  just  as  comprehen- 
sive. The  bill  of  1910  providing  methods  for  the  organization 
of  new  towns,  counties,  and  municipal  districts  and  for  changing 
the  boundaries  of  existing  counties,  and  the  bill  of  1912  providing 
methods  for  the  consolidation  of  contiguous  incorporated  towns, 
legalizing  consolidations  before  attempted,  and  providing  a 
method  for  the  organization  of  new  counties,  may  be  criticized  as 
"initiative  log-rolling."  The  latter  was  drawn  by  representa- 
tives of  towns  desiring  consolidation  and  of  a  district  desiring  the 
organization  of  a  new  county.  But  most  complaint  has  been 
directed  against  the  initiative  "near-constitutions"  of  1910  and 
1912,  which  aimed  to  reorganize  radically  the  whole  legislative 
system.  Even  the  lengthy  ballot  titles  of  these  measures  are 
not  fully  adequate  to  indicate  "the  wilderness  of  provisions" 
included.2  One  of  these  has  been  estimated  to  contain  "  thirty- 
two  distinct  subjects."  3  But  it  is  somewhat  consoling  to  re- 

1  Above,  p.  42.  2  Below,  pp.  254-66. 

3  C.  H.  Carey,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  20,  1913,  p.  16,  col.  2. 

The  real  scope  of  an  initiative  bill  of  1912  providing  for  the  abolition  of  capital 
punishment  was  much  greater  than  would  appear  from  an  inspection  of  the  meas- 
ure ;  for  the  governor  had  reprieved  until  after  election  all  convicts  sentenced  to  be 
hanged  and  made  their  execution  depend  on  the  fate  of  the  bill.  Thus  at  the  same 
time  the  voters  acted  on  a  general  provision  of  law,  they  were  made  to  feel  a  respon- 
sibility for  the  execution  of  certain  convicts.  "In  this  way  the  people  of  the  state 
will  act  as  a  jury.  There  will  be  plenty  of  time  for  discussion  of  the  proposition 
before  next  November,  and  all  who  vote  for  it  will  go  into  the  polling  booths  with 
their  eyes  opened  to  the  fact  that  they  are  either  voting  to  aid  in  hanging  these  men 
or  to  save  their  necks."  Governor  West,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  4,  1912,  p.  7, 
col.  i .  "These  miserable  wretches  will  be  used  as  a  bogey  to  frighten  the  people  into 
voting  down  capital  punishment."  Eugene  Register,  Jan.  i,  1912,  p.  12,  col.  2. 
Similar  circumstances  involved  the  amendment  for  the  abolition  of  capital  punish- 
ment submitted  in  1914. 


46     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

member  that  the  people  of  other  states  are  occasionally  called 
upon  to  consider  the  merits  of  the  revision  of  an  entire  con- 
stitution. 

Particularly  on  account  of  this  "initiative  log-rolling"  it  has 
been  proposed  to  require  the  subject-matter  of  initiative  meas- 
ures to  be  "single  in  character,"  limited  to  "a  single  proposition 
in  concrete  form."  l  Although  the  practicability  of  such  sug- 
gestions has  been  doubted,2  it  would  seem  that  some  such  restric- 
tion would  at  least  be  as  effective  as  in  case  of  ordinary  legisla- 
tion, and  that  the  provisions  now  applying  to  only  one  kind  of 
legislation  might  well  be  extended  to  include  both.3 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  observed  that  sometimes,  in- 
stead of  a  combination  of  subjects  that  are  not  properly  related 
into  one  initiative  measure,  there  has  been  a  separation  of  sub- 
jects that  are  properly  related  into  two  measures,  with  the  hope 
of  securing  the  enactment  of  one  even  if  the  other  should  be  de- 
feated. The  two  gross-earnings  tax  bills  of  1906  and  the  two 
convict  bills  of  1912  are  illustrations  of  such  separation.4 

The  people  are  protected  to  some  extent  against  combinations 
of  unrelated  provisions  by  the  legislative  assembly,  which  might 
make  the  invoking  of  the  referendum  impossible  or  unwise,  by 
the  constitutional  amendment  which  permits  the  attack  of  one 
or  more  items  of  a  measure  without  involving  the  others,6  after 
the  manner  provided  in  some  states  for  the  governor's  veto  of 
separate  items.  This  amendment  was  enacted  after  the  ref- 
erendum of  the  general  appropriation  act  of  1905,  which  was 
invoked  chiefly  on  account  of  the  presence  of  items  for  normal 
schools,  but  necessarily  involved  the  other  state  institutions 
provided  for  in  the  same  act.6 

1  C.  H.  Carey,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  18,  41 
(1008) ;  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  29, 1908,  p.  2,  col.  i ;  ibid.,  Nov.  20, 1913,  p.  16,  col.  2. 

1  Cf.  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  22,  1008,  sec.  5,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  July  26,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

4  Where  two  or  more  provisions  are  related  and  offered  as  separate  measures,  the 
failure  of  one  may  largely  or  wholly  nullify  the  effect  of  another  which  has  passed. 

1  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  xa  (1906).       •  Cf.  Oregonian,  Sept.  10, 1905,  p.  24,  col.  i. 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        47 

5 

Conflicting  Measures 

If  two  or  more  conflicting  laws  or  conflicting  constitutional 
amendments  are  approved  at  the  same  election,  the  measure  re- 
ceiving the  greatest  number  of  votes  is  "  paramount  in  all  particu- 
lars as  to  which  there  is  a  conflict."  l 

Since  there  is  no  method  of  insuring  coordination  of  the  various 
separate  movements  for  direct  legislation  —  except  those  inaugu- 
rated by  the  legislative  assembly  —  at  a  given  election  there  is 
of  course  a  possibility  of  great  confusion  as  a  result  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  two  or  more  conflicting  measures  at  the  same  time. 

In  1906  several  sets  of  rival  measures  appeared,  but  rivalry 
was  eliminated  before  the  measures  were  filed.  In  1908  two 
opposing  bills  for  the  control  of  fishing  in  the  Columbia  river 
were  initiated.  In  1910  one  measure  providing  for  single- 

1  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  7 ;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3477.  "In  other  words, 
where  two  bills  on  the  same  subject  are  adopted  it  is  necessary  to  combine  them  into 
one  act,  retaining  the  parts  of  both  that  do  not  conflict  and  eliminating  the  con- 
flicting provisions  from  the  one  receiving  the  lesser  affirmative  vote."  Oregonian 
Nov.  26,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i.  Note  a  discussion  on  the  question  held  in  the  absence 
of  statutory  provision.  Ibid.,  Jan.  24,  1006,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  Jan.  29,  1006,  p.  i,  col.  i ; 
Jan.  31,  1906,  p.  6,  col.  i ;  Feb.  3,  1906,  p.  14,  col.  i ;  Feb.  5,  1906,  p.  6,  col.  2.  No 
provision  is  made  regarding  a  conflict  between  a  constitutional  amendment  and 
a  statute  approved  at  the  same  election,  but  probably,  upon  principle,  the  constitu- 
tional amendment  would  prevail.  Cf.  Oregonian,  Nov.  26,  1912,  p.  12,  col.  i ;  Ore- 
gon Journal,  June  8,  1913,  p.  2,  col.  3.  But  see  Oregonian,  Nov.  30,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2 ; 
Sept.  9, 1913,  p.  6,  col.  i ;  opinion  of  attorney-general,  ibid.,  Dec.  10, 1912,  p.  7,  col.  4. 
A  constitutional  amendment  submitted  in  1912  "amends  and  repeals  all  constitu- 
tional amendments  or  acts  in  conflict  herewith,  including  any  acts  or  provisions 
relating  thereto  submitted  to  the  people  concurrently  with  this  amendment."  Ref- 
erendum Pamphlet,  1912,  no.  360,  p.  206. 

Statutes  and  constitutional  amendments  are  put  on  exactly  the  same  footing  by 
amendments  proposed  by  the  People's  Power  League.  "If  conflicting  measures 
submitted  to  the  people  shall  be  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  severally  cast 
for  and  against  the  same,  the  one  receiving  the  highest  number  of  affirmative  votes 
shall  thereby  become  law  as  to  all  conflicting  provisions."  Referendum  Pamphlet, 
1910,  no.  360,  sec.  i,  p.  187;  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  no.  362,  sec.  ia,  p.  210. 
City  charter  amendments  and  ordinances  are  already  on  the  same  footing  in  this 
respect.  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  12 ;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3482. 


48     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

district  elections  and  another  including  provision  for  proportional 
representation  in  the  legislative  assembly  had  places  in  the  ballot, 
and  a  provision  for  a  commission  on  employers'  liability  had 
place  with  an  employers'  liability  bill.  In  1912  there  was  a  con- 
flict between  the  "single-tax"  proposal  and  the  proposal  for 
exemption  of  household  goods  from  taxation,1  and  another,  ap- 
parently, between  this  household  exemption  bill  and  a  taxation 
amendment,2  another  conflict  between  three  sets  of  road  meas- 
ures, one  of  them  a  constitutional  amendment,  two  "majority 
rule"  amendments  appeared,  the  proposal  of  the  office  of  lieuten- 
ant-governor conflicted  with  a  provision  in  another  measure 
for  an  election  in  case  of  a  vacancy  in  the  office  of  governor, 
and  the  university  and  agricultural  college  millage-tax  bill  was 
really  a  substitute  for  the  university  appropriations  referred  at  the 
same  election.  At  the  election  of  1914  the  two  amendments  abro- 
gating the  rule  of  "equal  and  uniform"  taxation  were  in  direct 
conflict  with  another  amendment  which  retained  this  rule,  and 
the  latter  amendment  contained  a  tax  exemption  provision  which 
conflicted  with  the  fifteen-hundred-dollar  exemption  amendment. 
Moreover,  the  tax-code  commission  bill  submitted  at  this  election 
was  really  the  rival  of  all  the  tax  administration  bills  submitted.3 

1  "It  is  conceivable  that  a  man  who  favors  single  tax  would  as  second  choice  vote 
for  the  bill  exempting  household  effects  from  taxation.  Had  both  household  exemp- 
tion and  single  tax  carried,  the  former  by  the  higher  affirmative  vote,  we  should  have 
attained  a  ridiculous  situation.  The  single-tax  measure  would  have  exempted  all 
household  effects,  other  personal  property  and  improvements  from  taxation.  The 
specific  household  exemption  bill  would  have  conflicted  with  the  other  in  probably 
but  one  particular.  It  affirmatively  declared  that  any  building  used  jointly  for  pub- 
lic worship  and  for  business  purposes  should  be  taxed.  The  single- tax  measure  would, 
without  conflict,  have  exempted  all  other  buildings.  If  the  household  exemption 
bill  had  received  the  greater  affirmative  vote  and  both  had  carried,  the  only  building 
of  any  kind  that  would  be  taxed  would  be  the  church  used  for  other  purposes  than 
public  worship.  What  could  be  more  senseless?"  Oregonian,  Nov.  26,  1912,  p.  10, 
col.  i.  See  also  ibid.,  Oct.  i,  1911,  p.  7,  col.  3;  Oregon  Journal,  June  6,  1913,  p.  2, 
col.  3.  J  Below,  p.  116. 

1 A  conflict,  inform,  between  measures  appeared  in  the  case  where  the  same  num- 
bers of  article  and  section  of  the  constitution  were  appropriated  for  two  initiated 
amendments  adopted  at  the  election  of  1914.  This  doubtless  has  no  legal  signifi- 
cance. Cf.  Oregonian,  Nov.  30,  1914,  p.  9,  col.  3. 


The  Substance  and  Form  of   Measures        49 

Such  complications  put  difficulties  in  the  way  of  intelligent 
voting  by  confusion  of  the  voters  and  may  even  induce  them  to 
refrain  from  voting.  Or,  where  no  such  confusion  arises,  measures 
which  are  really  favored  by  a  majority  of  the  voters  may  be  de- 
feated by  the  minority.  "  Two  bills  are  offered  for  the  purpose  at 
the  same  election.  Either  of  them  if  standing  alone  might  well 
receive  the  support  of  almost  the  entire  four-fifths.  Yet  the 
voters  are  divided  according  to  their  individual  ideas  as  to  the 
better  method  and  vote  against  the  one  they  favor  the  less. 
This  adverse  vote,  with  that  of  the  one-fifth  who  are  opposed  to 
the  project  itself,  defeats  both  measures.  We  thus  have  the 
spectacle  of  legislation  blocked  by  a  small  minority  of  adverse 
sentiment."  1  Or,  further,  sinister  interests  are  thus  invited  to 
put  measures  on  the  ballot  solely  for  [the  purpose  of  defeating 
legislation  obnoxious  to  them.  "Persons  not  in  sympathy  with 
legislation  the  majority  desire  may  propose  alternative  measures 
for  the  concealed  purpose  of  defeating  the  will  of  the  people.  .  .  . 
By  invoking  the  referendum  and  later  submitting  an  alternative 
measure  of  the  same  purport  opponents  can  defeat  almost  any 
act  the  legislature  may  devise.  If  aware  in  tune  of  plans  to  sub- 
mit legislation  by  initiative,  they  can  defeat  these  measures  as 
well." 2  It  has  been  charged  that  the  defeat  of  proposed  legisla- 
tion by  this  method  was  attempted  in  case  of  the  employers' 
liability  bill  through  the  initiation,  by  employers,  of  another  bill 
providing  for  a  commission  for  the  investigation  of  the  subject  of 
employers'  liability.  That  the  apprehension  of  evil  effects  from 
the  presence  of  conflicting  measures  at  the  election  has  some  foun- 
dation has  become  evident  in  the  actual  operation  of  the  system.3 

This  "vulnerable  point"  in  the  system  might  be  protected 
in  some  degree  by  a  method  of  preferential  voting  on  con- 
flicting measures.4 

1  Quoted  in  Oregonian,  Nov.  26,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 
1  Oregonian,  Nov.  12,  1912,  p.  8.  col.  3.  *  Below,  pp.  115—7. 

4  Cf.  Oregonian,  July  26,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i.  "When  conflicting  measures  are  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  the  ballots  shall  be  so  printed  that  a  voter  can  express  separately 


50     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

6 
The  Form  of  Measures 

In  direct  legislation  the  matter  of  form  is  even  more  important 
than  in  action  by  the  legislative  assembly. 

There  has  been  much  criticism  of  crudely  drawn  initiative 
measures.1  But,  although  there  has  been  at  tunes  good  ground 
for  such  complaint,  on  the  whole  the  measures  submitted  through 
the  initiative  compare  well  in  form  with  the  legislation  enacted 
by  the  assembly. 

"It  is  not  unreasonable  to  assume  that  any  organization  that 
wishes  to  get  a  measure  referred  to  the  people  under  the  initia- 
tive will  take  rather  more  pains  to  have  it  well  drawn  and  as 
clear  and  simple  as  possible  than  a  member  of  the  legislature 
would  do  in  proposing  a  bill  to  that  body,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
chance  of  having  his  bill  mutilated  in  the  committees  of  two 
houses  and  emasculated  by  amendments  on  the  floor.  I  am 
aware  that  the  latter  form  of  procedure  is  supposed  to  make  for 
prudence  and  care,  but  I  doubt  if  any  careful  student  of  legis- 
lation by  congressional  or  state  bodies  will  seriously  maintain 
that  practice  confirms  the  theory."  2 

And  indeed  practice  has  not  confirmed  the  theory  in  Oregon. 
"The  quality  of  the  bills  passed  is  a  matter  upon  which  it  is 
impossible  to  adduce  within  reasonable  limits  any  evidence  other 

by  making  one  cross  (X)  for  each,  two  preferences,  first,  as  between  either  measure 
or  neither,  and,  secondly,  as  between  one  and  the  other.  If  the  majority  of  those 
voting  on  the  first  issue  is  for  neither,  both  fail,  but  in  that  case  the  votes  on  the 
second  issue  shall  nevertheless  be  carefully  counted  and  made  public.  If  a  majority 
voting  on  the  first  issue  is  for  either,  then  the  measure  securing  a  majority  of  the  votes 
on  the  second  issue  shall  be  law."  Washington  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  la  (1912). 
Cf.  Ohio  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  ig  (1912). 

1  E.g.  F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory  Results  under  Initiative 
Amendments  of  the  Oregon  Constitution  (1910).  The  absence  of  enacting  clauses  in 
case  of  two  initiative  bills  has  been  the  text  for  much  criticism  in  this  connection. 

*  G.  A.  Thacher,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Independent,  vol.  64,  pp. 
1191,  1194  (1908).  See  also  J.  Bourne,  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  122,  129  (1909). 


The  Substance  and  Form  of  Measures        51 

than  individual  judgment.  This  shall  be  my  apology  for  offering 
my  personal  opinion,  based  upon  an  examination  of  all  the 
general  laws  of  Oregon  in  force  in  1910,  in  pursuance  of  the  duty 
of  compiling  the  official  publication  of  the  statutes,  made  under 
public  authority  in  that  year,  that  in  all  that  pertains  to  the 
technique  of  draftsmanship,  legislation  passed  under  the  initia- 
tive is  markedly  superior  to  the  average  of  the  statutes  passed 
by  the  legislature.  This  superiority  is  not  inherent,  of  course, 
but  results  naturally  from  the  fact  that  these  laws  have  mostly 
been  drafted  by  a  rather  large  committee  of  persons  having  a 
lively  interest  in  the  matter  in  hand  and  some  practical  knowl- 
edge of  it,  besides  what  knowledge  they  may  have  of  the  general 
requirements  of  legislation ;  and  that  the  framers  were  aware 
that  their  measure  once  launched,  must  go  as  it  is,  for  better  or 
worse.  The  technical  part  of  a  legislator's  work  —  the  mere 
framing  of  a  law  in  such  a  way  that  it  may  possibly  accomplish 
what  it  is  intended  to  do  —  is  done  with  such  incredible  badness 
in  at  least  one  American  state  that  anything  which  promises 
improvement  in  it  ought  to  be  hailed  with  glad  acclaim."  l 

Experience  has  emphasized,  in  one  particular  at  least,  the 
importance  of  the  mechanical  side  of  drafting  legislative  meas- 
ures to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  It  is  often  impossible  to 
determine  Lfrom  the  face  of  a  proposed  measure  the  extent 
of  change  of  the  existing  constitutional  or  statutory  provisions 
contemplated.  "Article  VII  of  the  constitution  of  the  state  of 
Oregon  shall  be  and  the  same  hereby  is  amended  to  read  as  fol- 
lows," introduced  the  reorganization  of  the  judicial  system  of 
the  state.  "  Section  la  of  article  IX  of  the  constitution  of  the 
state  of  Oregon,  shall  be,  and  hereby  is,  amended  to  read  as  fol- 
lows :  No  poll  or  head  tax  shall  be  levied  or  collected  in  Oregon. 
The  legislative  assembly  shall  not  declare  an  emergency  in  any 

1  R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3, 
pp.  256,  266  (1014).  See  also  J.  N.  Teal,  Practical  Workings  of  the  Initiative  and  Ref- 
erendum in  Oregon,  Proceedings  of  theCincinnati  Conference /or  Good  City  Government, 
1909,  pp.  309,  318. 


52     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

act  regulating  taxation  or  exemption,"  does  not  itself  indicate 
the  fact  that  it  is  proposed  to  repeal  the  requirements  for  the 
submission  of  legislative  tax  laws  to  the  people,  remove  tax 
measures  approved  by  the  people  from  exemption  from  con- 
stitutional restrictions,  and  repeal  "county  home  rule"  in  tax- 
ation. Of  course,  it  would  often  be  impossible  to  indicate  by 
any  mechanical  means  all  the  implications  of  proposed  measures 
in  regard  to  existing  law,  even  if  they  should  be  known  to  the 
authors ;  but  when  a  measure  purports  to  amend  specific  con- 
stitutional or  statutory  provisions,  those  provisions  should  be 
indicated  with  the  changes  proposed,  in  order  that  the  voter 
may  by  comparison  see  for  himself  the  extent  of  the  changes 
proposed.1 

Difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  identification  of  measures  on  the 
ballot  due  to  the  inadequate  system  of  ballot  titles  employed  has 

1  Cf.  M.  C.  George,  Oregon  Journal,  Dec.  5, 1912,  p.  8,  col.  5 ;  E.  W.  Allen,  Eugene 
Register,  Mar.  27,  1914,  p.  4,  col.  3.  "If  any  measure  shall  be  submitted  proposing 
an  amendment  of  the  constitution  or  an  amendment  of  any  law,  the  existing  section 
or  sections  of  the  constitution  or  the  law  and  the  section  or  sections  as  proposed 
to  be  amended  shall  be  printed  in  parallel  columns  in  such  petition  and  in  the  pam- 
phlet ...  to  the  end  that  the  voter  may  readily  compare  the  proposed  changes." 
House  Bill,  1909,  no.  i,  sec.  2,  Cf.  California  Laws,  1913,  ch.  630. 
Section  u.  Section  2428  of  the  statutes  is  amended  to  read : 
113.11.  Every  term  in  any  county  is  a  special  term  for  every  other  county  in  the  same 
circuit,  unless  the  presiding  judge  files  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  at  least  twelve  days 
before  the  term  an  order  directing  otherwise  as  to  any  such  other  county.  Whenever  At 
any  term  -ef  the  circuit  court  in  any  county  ohall  have  been  declared  which  is  by  law 
4e--be-a  special  term  for  the  whole  judicial  circuit  or  for  any  other  designated  county 
or  counties,  all  business  may  be  done  at  ouch  torm  arising  in  -a»y-  such  other  county 
or  counties  in  ouch  circuit  or  in  the  countios  so  dcoignatod  roopoctivcly  which  might 
be  done  at  a  general  term  in  the  county  where  the  business  arose,  except  the  trial  of 
issues  of  fact  by  a  jury  in  cases  other  than  those  arising  in  actions  of  quo  warranto 
and  mandamus,  and  excepting  also  the  trial  of  issues  of  fact  in  actions  made  local 
by  law  and  arising  in  some  county  other  than  the  one  in  which  such  special  term 
ohall  be  is  held.  All  orders,  judgments,  findings,  proofs,  testimony  and  other  pro- 
ceedings had  or  made  at  any  such  special  term,  being  authenticated  by  the  clerk  of 
such  court,  shall  be  filed  and  entered  of  record  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  circuit 
court  in  the  county  where  the  action  or  proceeding  shall  be  pending ;  or  tho  procood- 
-iag-  -arese-;  and  no  entries  need  be  made  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  circuit 
court  of  any  other  county.  Wisconsin  Senate  Substitute  Amendment,  no.  2,  to 
Senate  Bill,  1913,  no.  103. 


The  Substance  and  Form  of   Measures        53 

been  a  more  serious  matter.  The  possibility  of  drafting  inten- 
tionally misleading  titles  has  been  reduced,  as  above  indicated,  by 
a  requirement  that  the  attorney-general  shall  prepare  the  titles.1 
The  law  of  1907  provides  that  the  ballot  title  shall  not  contain 
over  one  hundred  words ;  and  that  "  in  making  such  ballot  title 
the  attorney-general  shall,  to  the  best  of  his  ability  give  a  true 
and  impartial  statement  of  the  purpose  of  the  measure,  and  in 
such  language  that  the  ballot  title  shall  not  be  intentionally  an 
argument,  or  likely  to  create  prejudice,  either  for  or  against  the 
measure."2  But  the  clumsy  ballot  titles  which  have  resulted 
from  describing  or  attempting3  to  describe  all  the  subjects, 
sometimes  very  numerous,4  included  in  a  measure,  have  at  times 
actually  resulted  in  making  very  difficult  the  identification  of 
measures  by  the  voters.5  To  remedy  this  difficulty,  an  act  of 
1913  provides  that,  in  addition  to  the  "general  title"  heretofore 
required,  the  attorney-general  shall  prepare  a  "  distinctive  short 
title  in  not  exceeding  ten  words  by  which  the  measure  is  com- 
monly referred  to  or  spoken  of  by  the  public  or  press."  6  The 
innovation  has  been  very  satisfactory.7 

1  Above,  p.  29.  2  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  5;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  36. 

8  "This  year's  election  indicates  that  the  attorney -general  should  be  a  professional 
psychologist  and  an  advertising  expert  as  well  as  a  lawyer  in  order  to  be  impartial." 
G.  A.  Thacher,  Interesting  Election  in  Oregon,  Independent,  vol.  69,  pp.  1434,  1437-8 
(1910).  4  E.g.  below,  pp.  254-66. 

6  Cf.  Oregon  Journal,  Dec.  5,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  Dec.  17,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  3 ;  Pacific 
Grange  Bulletin,  vol.  5,  p.  42  (1912).  *  Laws,  1913,  ch.  36. 

7  Initiated  by  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregon  City,  Oregon,  G.  M.  Orton,  82^  Front  Street, 
Portland,  Oregon,  W.  H.  Daly,  City  Hall,  Portland,  Oregon,  H.  D.  Wagnon,  Worces- 
ter Block,  Portland,  Oregon,  A.  D.  Cridge,  954  E.  22d  Street,  Portland,  Oregon,  Fred 
Peterson,  Klamath  Falls,  Oregon,  E.  J.  Stack,  162  Second  Street,  Portland,  Oregon, 
C.  Schuebel,  Oregon  City  Oregon.  —  Ji  500  TAX  EXEMPTION  AMENDMENT. 
—  Its  purpose  is  to  exempt  from  assessment  and  taxation,  dwelling  houses,  house- 
hold furniture,    live   stock,    machinery,    orchard    trees,    vines,    bushes,    shrubs, 
nursery  stock,  merchandise,  buildings  and  other  improvements  on,  in  and  under 
lands  made  by  clearing,  ditching  and  draining,  but  not  to  exempt  the  land ;   it  is 
intended  to  exempt  up  to  $1500,  all  kinds  of  personal  property  and  land  improve- 
ments of  all  kinds,  but  the  land  itself  shall  be  assessed.  Vote  YES  or  NO 

326  Yes 

327  No 

A  ballot  title  of  1914. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  MAKING  OF   PETITIONS 

i 
The  Percentage  of  Signatures  Required 

UNDER  the  constitutional  provision  now  in  force  an  initiative 
measure  may  be  proposed  by  a  petition  signed  by  a  number  of 
"legal  voters"  equal  to  eight  per  cent  of  the  votes  cast  for  justice 
of  the  supreme  court  at  the  election  next  preceding  the  filing  of 
the  petition,  and  a  referendum  may  similarly  be  called  by  a 
petition  containing  five  per  cent  of  this  number.1  No  dis- 
tinction in  this  regard  is  made  between  statutes  and  constitu- 
tional amendments.  The  actual  number  of  signatures  required 
of  course  automatically  increases  roughly  in  proportion  to  the 
increase  of  the  number  of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state. 
The  number  of  signatures  required  for  measures  submitted  at 
the  election  of  1904  was  4386  for  referendum  petitions,  and  7018 
for  initiative  petitions.  These  numbers  have  increased  until 
at  the  election  of  1914,  6312  signatures  were  required  for  refer- 
endum petitions,  and  10,099  f°r  initiative  petitions. 

On  account  of  the  ease  of  securing  signatures  under  the  present 
provisions  and  the  consequent  over-burdening  of  the  ballot  with 
initiative  and  referendum  measures,  there  has  been  some  agita- 
tion for  the  increase  of  the  percentages  at  present  required.2 
However,  the  successful  operation  of  the  system  of  direct  legis- 
lation in  Oregon  has  been  attributed  in  part  to  the  low  percentages 

1  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902).     Sometimes  petitions  are  circulated  against 
the  proposed  submission  of  measures  to  the  voters. 
*  E.g.  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution,  1911,  no.  13. 

54 


The  Making  of  Petitions  55 

heretofore  required.  "To  go  beyond  this  is  to  make  it  almost 
impossible  to  submit  any  measure  that  is  desired  in  the  interests 
of  the  common  people,  or  those  who  have  little  money  or  none 
at  all  besides  what  they  earn  by  day's  wages."  l  But  most  of 
the  criticism  of  the  present  low  percentages  is  based  upon  the 
abuse  of  direct  legislation  by  narrow  selfish  interests  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  public  welfare.  Raising  the  percentages  would 
simply  result  in  increasing  the  amount  of  fraud  already  prevalent 
in  the  circulation  of  petitions.2  However,  it  is  probable  that 
the  increase  of  actual  numbers  required  in  the  future  by  the  ex- 
tension of  suffrage  to  women  will  render  petition  making  really 
more  difficult.  "It  might  be  inferred  from  casual  consideration 
that  when  the  voting  population  is  doubled  the  ease  of  obtain- 
ing signatures  is  increased  in  the  same  proportion.  This 
might  be  true  if  the  added  voters  were  men  and  if  all  direct 
legislation  and  all  recalls  were  founded  on  widespread  public 
demand.  But  hard  cash  is  the  motive  power  that  turns  the 
petition  machinery  of  these  newly-adopted  principles  of  govern- 
ment in  Oregon.  .  .  .  The  petition  circulator  is  paid  by  the  name. 
He  gets  the  names  in  the  barrooms,  cigar  stores,  on  the  street 
corners  and  at  the  noon  hour  near  the  large  factories.  He  operates 
where  men  congregate.  Where  do  women  congregate?  At 
any  place  where  a  paid  petition  circulator  can  approach  them? 
Doubling  the  voting  population  by  giving  votes  to  women  will 
not  double  the  number  of  loafers  in  the  saloons,  increase  the 
crowds  in  the  cigar  stores  or  augment  the  pedestrians  on  the 
street.  A  male  solicitor  would  not  have  much  success  in  stopping 
women  on  the  street.  A  female  solicitor  might  meet  with  a 
small  measure,  though  we  doubt  it.  About  the  only  additions 
to  the  solicitor's  prey  will  be  in  the  factories,  where  women  are 
employed.  But  in  return  for  this  small  help  he  must  get  double 
the  number  of  names."  3 

1 W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Equity,  vol.  14,  pp.  18-19  (1913)-    Cf.  Equity,  vol.  13, 
pp.  65-6  (1911).  2  Below,  pp.  65-8. 

3  Oregonian,  Oct.  14,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  i.    See  also  ibid.,  Oct.  14,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  2. 


56     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

It  should  be  mentioned  in  this  connection  that  sometimes  a 
large  surplus  of  signatures  is  obtained,  partly  as  a  safeguard 
against  failure  of  a  measure  from  the  presence  of  irregular  signa- 
tures, and  partly  from  prestige  real  or  supposed,  given  a  move- 
ment backed  by  many  petitioners. 

But  the  number  of  signatures  does  not,  even  in  the  absence 
of  fraud,  under  present  conditions,  give  any  true  indication  of 
public  opinion  in  regard  to  the  measures  submitted.  The  fact 
that  "  the  procuring  of  the  necessary  signatures  to  a  petition  is, 
in  effect,  the  introduction  of  a  bill  before  a  legislative  body 
composed  of  the  whole  people,"  *  is  unfortunately  often  not  real- 
ized by  persons  whose  signatures  to  petitions  are  solicited. 
There  is  much  evidence  for  the  proposition  that  "anybody  will 
sign  any  kind  of  a  petition."  Persons  approached  with  petitions 
very  seldom  have  time  to  read  the  measure,  sometimes  of  great 
length,  and  the  circulators  are  anxious  to  have  the  business  over  as 
soon  as  possible.  Any  information  as  to  the  nature  of  the  meas- 
ure thus  usually  comes,  if  it  comes  at  all,  from  the  interested 
circulator.2  Often  with  little  or  no  knowledge  whatever  about 
the  measure,  persons  sign  names  to  accommodate  the  circulator 
or  to  get  rid  of  his  importunity.3  Often,  again,  they  sign  "  to 
give  the  people  a  chance"  to  decide  upon  the  measure.  "It 

1 J.  Bourne,  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  25,  1914,  sec.  2,  p.  3,  col.  i. 

2  Testimony  in  court  regarding  the  circulation  of  petitions : 

"Levi  J.  Robinson  .  .  .  said  he  did  not  know  he  had  signed  the  referendum,  and 
did  not  intend  to  do  so.  However,  he  identified  his  signature  as  genuine.  He  said 
the  petition  had  been  presented  to  him  by  Matthews,  whom  he  knew,  and  he  was  told 
it  was  for  a  municipal  paving  plant.  He  was  busy,  and  did  not  read  it."  Oregon 
Journal,  Oct.  6,  1911,  p.  19,  col.  i. 

3  Testimony  in  court  regarding  the  circulation  of  petitions : 

"0.  C.  Potts  was  an  example  of  the  doubtful  witness.  He  said  he  had  signed 
some  petitions,  he  could  not  be  sure  what  ones.  After  examining  his  name  on  the 
petition  for  some  time,  he  said  he  did  not  believe  he  had  written  it  ...  Dayton 
Trussell  .  .  .  said  he  did  not  remember  signing,  but  would  have  done  so  if  the 
petition  had  been  presented.  He  did  not  believe  his  name  on  the  petition  to  be 
genuine."  Ibid.,  Oct.  6, 1911,  p.  19,  col.  i.  "Lots  of  men  said  they  would  sign  the 
petition  just  so  Harbeck  could  get  the  five  cents,  but  nearly  all  said  they  would  not 
vote  for  the  excise  board."  Circulator,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  Apr.  26,  1909,  p.  13, 
col.  i. 


The   Making  of  Petitions  57 

is  asked  [by  the  promoters  of  the  "harmony"  road  bills]  that 
signers  of  petitions  remember  one  thing  especially,  namely,  that 
by  signing  the  petitions  they  do  not  cast  a  vote  in  favor  of  the 
bills,  but  merely  thus  indicate  that  they  are  willing  for  the  bills 
to  go  to  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection."  l  Thus  the 
number  of  petitioners  is  seen  to  have  little  proper  significance.2 
But  recently  there  has  been  some  healthy  reaction  against  all 
this  indiscriminate  signing  of  petitions,  and  it  has  become  some- 
what more  difficult  than  formerly  to  secure  signatures  to  peti- 
tions. The  proper  purpose  of  the  petition  as  an  indication  of 
public  opinion  is  now  better  appreciated.  "In  refusing  to  sign 
the  petitions  that  are  presented  to  them,  the  people  are  choosing 
the  most  effective  method  of  discouraging  those  who  are  respon- 
sible for  over-loading  the  ballot.  ...  In  the  past  too  little 
stress  has  been  placed  on  the  fact  that  the  voter  is  called  upon  to 
exercise  just  as  exact  and  careful  judgment  when  he  signs  a  peti- 
tion as  when  he  votes  on  the  measure  at  the  general  election. 
Signing  a  petition  is  in  effect  a  vote  in  favor  of  the  measure 
for  which  it  is  being  circulated,  and  a  refusal  to  sign  the  petition 
is  an  effective  vote  against  the  proposed  law.  People  can  vote 
against  a  proposed  measure  just  as  effectively  by  refusing  to 
sign  the  petition  as  by  voting  'No'  at  the  election,  and  in 
addition  can  save  expense  and  cumbrance  of  the  ballot.  It 
is  generally  admitted  that  the  initiative  and  referendum  are 
being  abused.  The  most  effective  means  of  checking  the  abuse 

1  Oregon  Journal,  June  28,  igi2,  p.  23,  col.  6. 

"It  is  not  necessary,  legally  or  otherwise,  that  I  favor  or  even  understand  the 
merits  of  the  measure  that  I  ask  to  be  submitted.  Frankly  I  confess  that  I  do  not 
know  everything  and  for  that  reason  I  am  anxious  to  learn.  ...  Is  not  the  day 
of  election  and  not  the  filling  of  the  petition  the  trial  of  the  merit  of  the  measure 
and  the  legitimate  test  of  the  law  to  be  enacted  or  rejected?"  C.  W.  Barzee,  Ore- 
gonian,  Jan.  3,  1914,  p.  6,  col.  5. 

2  Similar  difficulties  have  occurred  in  case  of  the  direct  primary  law.     "As  the 
system  has  developed  it  has  proven  to  be  extremely  farcical.    It  has  provided  tem- 
porary jobs  for  men  who  have  circulated  the  petitions  and  has  given  them  a  pretty 
graft.    It  has  simply  degenerated  into  a  system  whereby  a  man  buys  his  way  to  se- 
cure a  place  on  the  ballot."    W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  May  7,  1912,  p.  6, 
col.  3. 


58     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

is  by  giving  just  as  careful  consideration  to  petitions  as  to  the 
measures  on  the  ballot."  l  "The  voter  who  refuses  to  sign  a 
referendum  petition  often  does  more  benefit  for  the  state  than 
when  he  casts  his  vote."  2 

Possibly  a  provision  requiring  that  petitioners  in  affixing 
their  signatures  should  at  the  same  time  pledge  themselves  to 
vote  for  the  measure  at  the  election  might  aid  in  increasing  the 
sense  of  responsibility  for  signature.3 


The  Geographical  Distribution  of  Signatures 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  law  now  obtaining  there  are  no 
restrictions  upon  the  proportion  of  signatures  which  may  be  se- 
cured in  any  one  locality.  Since  it  is  easier  to  solicit  signatures 
where  the  population  is  densest,  most  signatures  are  secured 
in  Portland  and  Multnomah  county  and  the  country  imme- 
diately surrounding,  containing  over  a  third  of  the  population 
of  the  state.  Petitions  are  thus  not  geographically  representa- 
tive, although  the  whole  state  bears  the  ballot's  burden  for 
which  one  section  of  the  state  is  largely  responsible.  Not  only 
for  this  reason,  but  also,  and  especially  because  securing  signa- 
tures in  the  more  densely  populated  districts  is  considered  too 
easy,  and  the  temptations  to  fraudulent  practice  are  greater 
there  than  elsewhere,  the  requirement  of  some  distribution  of 

1  Eugene  Register,  June  7,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

1  Oregonian,  Apr.  22,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  4.  See  also  Oregon  Journal,  June  6,  1912, 
p.  8,  col.  i.  For  the  election  of  1914  the  circulation  of  forty-three  bills  was  under, 
taken,  but  only  twenty-nine  of  them  were  finally  submitted  to  a  vote. 

*  "There  shall  also  plainly  appear  on  all  initiative  and  referendum  petitions  .  .  . 
these  words,  'I  hereby  declare  that  before  signing  this  petition,  I  have  carefully 
read  all  of  the  above  described  ...  or  the  whole  thereof  has  been  read  to  me  in 
an  intelligible  manner,  that  I  believe  I  fairly  understand  the  same,  and  my  atten- 
tion was  called  to  this  declaration  by  the  person  presenting  this  petition  to  me 
before  I  signed  it.'"  And  the  circulators  are  penalized  for  failure  to  call  such 
attention.  House  Bill,  1911,  no.  9,  sec.  6.  See  Oregon  Journal,  Dec.  7,  1910,  p.  5, 
col.  i ;  Jan.  18,  1911,  p.  6,  col.  5. 


The  Making  of  Petitions  59 

signatures  over  the  state  has  been  advocated.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  petitions  should  represent  "several  counties,"  one 
fifth  of  the  counties,  even  two  thirds  of  the  counties,  or  that  each 
county  should  be  represented  on  the  petition  in  proportion  to  its 
population.1  Such  suggestions  accord  with  the  principle  of  the 
provision  in  the  direct  primary  law,  which  requires  that  the 
necessary  number  of  signers  of  petitions  for  candidates  for  state 
offices  shall  include  voters  residing  in  each  of  at  least  seven  out 
of  the  thirty-five  counties  of  the  state.2  The  extension  of  the 
provision  from  direct  nomination  to  direct  legislation  would 
seem  to  be  a  not  unreasonable  requirement.3 


3 

The  Payment  of  Circulators 

Petitions  for  some  measures  have  been  circulated  wholly 
by  volunteers  interested  in  the  good  of  the  cause  involved. 
But  such  cases  have  been  comparatively  few.  "It  is  difficult 
to  find  citizens  who  are  so  devoted  to  their  principles  as  to  be 
willing  to  circulate  such  petitions  without  compensation."  4 

At  times  attempt  has  been  made  to  procure  the  required 
number  of  signatures  for  very  meritorious  measures  without  the 
aid  of  paid  circulators,  but,  finally,  in  most  cases,  the  promoters 
of  the  measures  have  been  compelled  to  resort  to  the  usual 
method.  Necessity  for  reliance  upon  paid  circulators  has  been 
largely  reduced  when  the  promoters  of  measures  have  had  strong 
organizations  back  of  them.  But  paid  circulators  were  found 

1  C.  N.  McArthur,  Need  of  a  Constitutional  Convention,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon 
Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  148,  158;  S.  A.  Kozer,  quoted  in  Eugene  Register, 
July  i,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  C.  J.  Hurd,  ibid.,  Dec.  6,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  5 ;  Eugene  Guard, 
Dec.  8,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  Dec.  n,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  J.  M.  Shelley,  ibid.,  Dec.  13, 
1913,  p.  4,  col.  2 ;  Oregonian,  Dec.  20,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2.  Cf.  Montanta  Constitution, 
art.  5,  sec.  i  (1906);  Ohio  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  ig  (1912). 

J  Laws,  1005,  ch.  i,  sec.  14;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3362. 

8  For  the  contrary  view,  see  Equity,  vol.  13,  p.  66  (1911). 

•  State  v.  Olcott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  62,  pp.  277,  284  (1912). 


60     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

necessary  even  in  the  case  of  the  direct  primary  bill,  the  corrupt- 
practices  bill,  the  presidential  primary  bill,  and  the  constitutional 
amendments  for  the  recall,  home-rule  city  charters,  and  local 
initiative  and  referendum,  all  very  popular  and  all  promoted 
by  the  strongly  organized  People's  Power  League.  The  State 
Grange,  in  spite  of  its  strong  organization,  could  not  secure 
enough  signatures  for  the  gross-earnings  corporation-tax  bills 
without  payment  for  the  circulation  of  petitions,  and  the  same 
is  true  of  the  State  Federation  of  Labor  in  case  of  the  employers' 
liability  bill.  Yet  these  measures  were  approved  at  the  polls 
by  large  majorities.1  So  the  "industry"2  of  "petition  peddling" 
has  been  developed  to  meet  these  conditions.  For  signatures  to 
petitions  for  a  single  measure  circulators,  probably  in  most  cases, 
receive  five  cents  a  name,  but  especially  when  they  circulate 
petitions  for  two  or  more  measures  at  the  same  time,  they  receive 
less  —  three  and  a  half  cents,  three  cents  and  less.  Toward 
the  end  of  the  season  for  securing  signatures  the  "referendum 
market"  is  at  tunes  very  active,  and  the  price  of  signatures  goes 
up  to  ten  cents  or  more. 

On  account  of  the  loose  practice  prevailing  in  the  signing  of 
petitions,3  the  "professional  circulator"  is  largely  responsible 
for  placing  on  the  ballot  measures  in  which  he  has  only  a  pecu- 
niary interest,  the  petition  is  deprived  of  true  representative 
character,  and  law-making  becomes  a  mercenary  matter.4 
"Any  one  or  any  interest  willing  to  pay  the  price  can  hold  up 
any  legislative  bill,  however  meritorious  and  however  much 
needed  or  desired  by  the  public."5  "The  critical  weakness  in 
the  present  system  is  that  it  gives  the  interests  that  can  com- 

1  See  especially  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1913,  p.  2,  col.  3  ; 
F.  M.  Gill,  Pacific  Grange  Bulletin,  vol.  6,  p.  74,  col.  4  (1914). 

2  "A  contract  was  made  with  Mr.  Parkinson  for  3000  names  at  3$  cents  each, 
or  7  cents  for  the  two  names,  to  be  paid  for  as  fast  as  delivered."    J.  Spray,  Cottage 
Grove  Leader,  reprinted  in  Eugene  Register,  Nov.  3,  1911,  p.  i,  col.  i. 

3  Above,  pp.  54-8. 

4  See  especially  Oregonian,  Feb.  7,  1008,  p.  8,  col.  2 ;  Apr.  26,  1909,  p.  13,  col.  i ; 
Pacific  Outlook,  reprinted  in  Oregonian,  Mar.  3,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  6. 

*  Oreg onian,JDct.  10,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  2. 


The  Making  of  Petitions  61 

mand  money  a  practical  monopoly  of  the  business  of  petition 
making.  The  question  now  is  not  so  much  the  existence  of  a 
general  demand  for  the  legislation  that  is  contemplated  as 
whether  there  is  money  enough  at  hand  to  pay  for  the  circulation 
of  the  petitions.  Any  person  with  sufficient  money  knows 
that  he  can  get  any  kind  of  legislation  on  the  ballot."  1  "Paid 
circulation  tends  to  shirking  of  responsibility  and  creation  of 
hired  instrumentalities  for  the  propagation  of  ideas.  .  .  .  Pay- 
ment for  circulation  of  petitions  tends  to  develop  selfishness 
rather  than  interest  in  the  general  welfare.  The  effect  cannot 
be  otherwise  than  corrupting  when  the  citizen  circulates  for  pay 
a  petition  for  a  measure  in  which  he  does  not  believe."  2  Fur- 
ther, it  has  been  urged,  inequality  of  opportunity  in  direct  legis- 
lation is  fostered  by  the  method  of  employing  hired  circulators. 
"  If  the  common  people,  the  small  tax  payers,  want  a  law  for  pro- 
tection against  unjust  legislation  they  must  squeeze  out  the 
money  here  and  there.  They  must  first  beg  and  solicit  funds  to 
pay  the  petition-shover  to  beg  and  solicit  names.  But  the  cor- 
poration, the  '  vested  interest '  or  '  big  business,'  when  it  takes  a 
hand  in  law-making,  dips  into  a  well-filled  cash  box  and  never 
misses  the -money."3  However,  the  extensive  practice  of 
fraudulent  methods  by  hired  circulators  in  the  past 4  has  prob- 
ably had  much  more  to  do  than  any  other  consideration  with 
the  growing  popular  disgust  with  "petition-hawking."  "So 
long  as  there  is  money  reward  for  securing  signatures,  there 

1  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  31,  igi3,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

2  J.  Bourne,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1913,  sec.  2,  p.  8,  col.  5. 

3  Oregonian,  Dec.  18,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i.    See  also  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  19,  1911, 
p.  8,  col.  i ;  J.  Bourne,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1913,  sec.  2,  p.  8,  col.  5. 

"  Special  interests  will  not  in  our  belief,  be  able  under  any  circumstances,  to  ini- 
tiate legislation  detrimental  to  public  interests  because  of  this  restriction  against  the 
payment  of  petition  circulators.  In  any  of  the  states  where  money  can  be  freely 
used  for  these  purposes,  a  great  portion  of  the  time  and  energies  of  the  public-spirited 
organizations  is  necessarily  devoted  to  killing  off  legislation  submitted  by  special  inter- 
ests through  the  use  of  finances  always  at  their  command  for  the  liberal  payment  of 
petition  circulators  and  publicity  gained  by  the  power  of  money  upon  the  public 
press."  Report  of  Legislative  Committee  of  Washington  Grange,  Pacific  Grange 
BuUetin,  vol.  6,  p.  102,  col.  2  (1914)-  4  Below,  pp.  65-8. 


62     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

will  be  men  who  will  perpetrate  frauds  on  the  initiative  and 
referendum."  * 

For  several  years  there  has  been  an  agitation  for  a  law  to  make 
the  giving  or  receiving  of  payment  for  the  circulation  of  petitions 
a  penal  offense,  and  thus  to  put  petition-making  wholly  in  the 
hands  of  unpaid  volunteers.2  "If  a  measure  is  not  of  sufficient 
importance  and  public  interest  to  enlist  the  voluntary  service 
of  the  people  in  circulating  petitions,  it  should  never  go  before 
the  people  under  the  initiative  or  referendum.  Under  the  pres- 
ent practice,  the  man  or  group  of  men  who  have  money  to  spend, 
and  who  are  willing  to  spend  it,  can  secure  submission  of  any 
measure  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  even  though  it  be  against  public 
interest.  ...  If  the  practice  of  hiring  men  to  circulate  peti- 
tions were  abolished  by  stringent  criminal  laws,  there  would  be 
no  resort  to  direct  legislation  unless  the  real  interests  of  the 
people  demanded  such  a  course."3 

But  in  view  of  the  difficulties  of  enforcing  such  a  prohibition, 
it  seems  that  the  prohibition  would  result  in  hampering  those 
acting  in  good  faith  without  preventing  the  unscrupulous  from 
acting  in  violation  of  the  law.4  Great  business  interests,  acting 
through  their  armies  of  employees,  could  probably  easily  evade 
the  provision.6  Further,  without  any  evasion  of  the  law  it  is 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Oct.  5,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

*  Senate  Bill,  1909,  no.  81 ;  House  Bill,  1913,  no.  103 ;  A.  T.  Buxton,  reported  in 
Oregonian,  May  15,  1008,  p.  6,  col.  5 ;  J.  Bourne,  Oregon  Journal,  Oct.  28, 1913,  p.  3, 
col.  4;  Oregonian,  June  17,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2;  report  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  26,  1913, 
p.  5,  col.  2.  Cf.  South  Dakota  Laws,  1913,  ch.  202;  Washington  Laws,  1913,  ch. 
138,  sec.  32  ;  Ohio  Laws,  1914,  p.  119. 

1  Oregonian,  Mar.  27,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  4.  See  also  especially  A.  T.  Buxton,  quoted 
in  Oregonian,  Mar.  24,  1908,  p.  6.  col.  i ;  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  19,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i  ; 
debate  in  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  3, 1909,  p.  4,  col.  5 ;  J.  Bourne,  Oregon  Journal, 
Oct.  28,  1913,  p.  3,  col.  4. 

4  Debate  in  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  3,  1009,  p.  4,  col.  5;  Eugene  Register, 
Dec.  6,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  Oregonian,  Dec.  31,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  Jan.  8,  1914,  p.  8, 
col.  i. 

1  A.  D.  Cridge,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  n,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  4. 

The  members  of  a  county  court  are  reported  to  have  succeeded  in  having  an  act 
of  the  legislature  referred  to  the  voters  thus.  "Every  employee  at  the  mercy  of  the 


The  Making  of  Petitions  63 

considered  that  such  a  provision  would  operate  to  discriminate 
against  the  poorer  classes.  "  Workingmen  have  not  the  time  or 
opportunity  to  lay  down  their  daily  task  and  give  all  their  time 
to  petition  circulating,  even  though  it  be  favorable  to  their 
class.  They  can,  however,  by  stinting  themselves,  give  of  their 
wages  to  compensate  a  paid  circulator."  l  There  is  a  great  deal 
of  opinion  to  the  effect  that  the  provision  would  practically 
destroy  the  legitimate  use  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,2 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  heretofore  many  measures, 
clearly  favored  by  the  people,  could  not  have  been  placed  on  the 
ballot  without  the  aid  of  paid  circulators.3 

But  it  has  been  urged  that  such  payment  has  been  necessary 
in  the  past  largely  because  payment  has  been  allowable.  "  While 
paid  circulation  of  petitions  is  the  universal  custom,  there  will 
be  few  volunteers,  for  most  people  will  either  decline  to  work 
without  pay  while  others  are  paid,  or  will  hesitate  to  put  them- 
selves in  the  class  of  paid  workers.  When  all  those  who  circu- 
late petitions  do  so  because  they  sincerely  believe  in  the  end 
to  be  accomplished,  it  will  be  an  honor  to  be  enlisted  in  the  ranks 
of  the  workers."  4 

county  commissioners  was  required  to  secure  signatures  to  the  referendum  petition. 
.  .  .  One  aged  bridge-tender  who  refused  to  circulate  a  petition  was  promptly 
discharged  .  .  .  and  others  who  were  somewhat  slow  in  filling  their  lists  were 
threatened."  Oregonian,  Sept.  4,  1907,  p.  8,  col.  2.  "The  most  active  of  these 
county  employees  since  received  increases  in  salary."  Ibid.,  June  23,  1007,  p.  13, 
col.  2.  "Now  there  is  nothing  compulsory  about  this  kind  of  work.  .  .  The  petitions 
are  lying  there  in  the  office.  An  employee  drops  in  to  report  or  receive  instructions. 
He  sees  them  there  and  is  casually  told  what  the  blanks  are  for.  It  is  his  privilege 
to  take  no  further  interest  in  the  matter.  It  is  none  of  his  business.  But  then  a 
nice  job  is  such  a  comfortable  thing  .  .  .  and,  well,  it's  not  always  best  to  take  any 
chances."  Ibid.,  Mar.  15,  1907,  p.  10,  col.  3.  See  below,  p.  212,  note  2. 

1  C.  W.  Barzee,  Oregonian,  Jan.  3,  1914,  p.  6,  col.  5. 

*  E.g.  debate  in  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  3,  1009,  p.  4,  col.  5 ;  A.  D. 
Cridge,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  n,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  4;  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregon  Journal, 
Nov.  22,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  5. 

1  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1913,  p.  2,  col.  3;  F.  M.  Gill, 
Pacific  Grange  Bulletin,  vol.  6,  p.  74,  col.  4  (1914) ;  J.  King,  Concerning  the  Cost  of 
Petitions,  Equity,  vol.  14,  p.  18  (1912) ;  J.  King,  Safeguarding  Petitions,  Equity,  vol. 
16,  pp.  80-5  (1914).  *  J.  Bourne,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1913,  sec.  2,  p.  8,  col.  5. 


64     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

Of  course  the  actual  abolition  of  valuable  consideration  in 
petition  making  might  not  altogether  eliminate  motives  for 
fraudulent  petition  making,  for  frauds  may  be  perpetrated  in 
behalf  of  a  cause.1 

Opponents  of  the  plan  to  do  away  with  the  payment  of  circu- 
lators consider  that  danger  of  fraud  can  be  eliminated  by  the 
proper  enforcement  of  the  criminal  law,  especially  in  view  of 
the  recent  provision  which  requires  the  circulator  to  swear  that 
he  is  personally  acquainted  with  every  person  who  signs  the 
petition.2 

On  the  whole  it  would  seem  that  as  long  as  the  circulation  of 
petitions  is  permitted  —  substitutes  have  been  proposed  3  —  it 
would  be  unwise  to  prohibit  the  payment  of  the  circulators. 

4 
The  Methods  of  Circulators 

Individual  circulators  may  have  charge  of  petitions  for  only 
one  measure  or  for  several  measures.  The  tendency  of  "pro- 
fessional" circulation  is  toward  the  latter  plan.  Such  combina- 
tions result  from  the  support  of  more  than  one  measure  by  the 
same  parties,  or  from  the  independent  employment  of  the 
same  agents  by  the  supporters  of  different  measures ;  or  the  sup- 
porters of  different  measures  unite  and  employ  joint  agents  to 
circulate  the  petitions  for  the  several  measures  together. 

Signatures  are  solicited  on  the  streets,  from  house  to  house,  in 
stores  and  private  offices,  in  saloons  and  other  questionable 
places,  in  railroad  stations,  on  trains,  in  public  offices,4  at 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  Jan.  2,  igi4,  p.  10,  col.  r. 

*  W.  §.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  igi3,  p.  2,  col.  3. 

*  Below,  pp.  74-7. 

4  "Although  a  number  of  complaints  have  been  made  concerning  petitioners  who 
hang  around  at  the  very  doors  of  the  registration  office  in  the  court  house,  nothing 
has  been  done  yet,  while  the  petitioners  are  springing  up  like  mushrooms.  In  the 
past  week,  each  day,  there  has  been  another  petitioner  added  to  the  little  crowd 
collecting  names,  until  now  there  are  about  a  dozen  through  which  women  must 
pass  before  getting  out  of  the  court  house.  As  a  person  comes  out  of  the  registration 


The  Making  of  Petitions  65 

church, l  and  other  places  where  men  do  congregate.  Often  provi- 
sion for  signing  petitions  at  designated  places  is  made,  and  the 
supporters  of  the  measure  solicit  signatures  by  advertisement 
in  the  newspapers  or  otherwise. 

The  fraudulent  practices  of  hired  circulators  have  recently 
caused  more  discussion  in  Oregon  than  any  other  matter  con- 
cerning direct  legislation,  and  have  been  the  cause  of  most  of  the 
present  agitation  for  changes  in  the  initiative  and  referendum 
laws.  How  extensive  such  fraudulent  practices  have  generally 
become  it  is  impossible  to  say.  There  has  been  nothing  like  a 
thorough  investigation  of  the  petitions  except  in  a  few  cases, 
but.  the  fraud  disclosed  by  such  investigations  creates  a  suspi- 
cion that  very  much  more  fraud  remains  undisclosed.  Although 
in  some  cases  circulators  may  have  been  imposed  upon  by 
forgers  of  signatures,  apparently  in  most  cases  the  circulators 
themselves  have  alone  been  guilty  of  fraud. 

The  fraudulent  methods  practiced  in  case  of  the  referendum 
of  the  university  appropriations  of  1912  have  been  the  most 
notorious.  A  statement  of  the  fraud  in  that  case,  which  is  to 

office  he  or  she  is  grabbed  by  the  arm,  a  pencil  is  placed  into  his  or  her  hand  and 
before  the  victim  knows  what  has  happened  a  new  name  has  been  added  to  the 
petitions.  Many  women  have  complained  to  the  registration  clerks,  some  claiming 
that  they  had  been  insulted  by  those  in  charge  of  petitions.  Complaint  was  made 
a  few  weeks  ago  about  these  same  collectors  using  tables  that  had  been  left  in  the  hall. 
When  officials  heard  of  this  the  tables  were  removed  and  the  petitioners  took  up  their 
station  on  the  outside  of  the  building.  One  by  one  the  collectors  went  back  into  the 
building.  From  some  place  two  tables  appeared  and  now  the  name  gatherers  have 
the  use  of  them.  When  the  registration  is  slack  the  collectors  make  the  rounds 
of  the  building  seeking  names.  One  of  the  most  brazen  of  the  name  agents  seized 
the  opportunity  a  few  days  ago,  walked  into  the  registration  office  and  asked  each 
of  the  clerks  in  the  office  to  affix  their  signatures  to  a  petition.  He  got  no  names, 
however."  Oregon  Journal,  Mar.  25,  1013,  p.  ir,  col.  5.  "By  an  order  passed  by  the 
county  commissioners  yesterday  in  the  future  no  petitions  may  be  circulated  in  the 
corridors  of  the  court  house."  Oregonian,  Jan.  28,  1914,  p.  i,  col.  2. 

1  "The  best  place  to  catch  people  for  a  petition  of  that  kind  [an  initiative  excise 
ordinance]  is  at  churches  on  Sunday.  I  went  up  town  one  Sunday  and  stopped 
people  going  to  and  from  church.  Most  of  the  men  had  their  wives  with  them  and 
almost  had  to  sign  when  they  saw  what  kind  of  a  petition  it  was.  I  could  fill  a  whole 
book  with  names  on  Sunday  in  that  way."  A.  G.  Ross,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  Apr. 
26,  1909,  p.  13,  col.  i. 
F 


66     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

say  the  least,  not  overdrawn,  appears  in  the  decision  of  the  cir- 
cuit court.  "It  is  charged  in  the  complaint  that  some  twenty- 
five  different  persons  who  circulated  different  parts  of  this  peti- 
tion, as  the  agents  of  H.  J.  Parkison,  conspired  and  confederated 
together  to  corruptly  make  a  spurious  and  false  petition  by  the 
writing  of  fictitious  names  and  addresses  therein,  and  by  forging 
the  names  of  legal  voters  of  this  state ;  and  that  in  pursuance 
thereof,  the  said  conspirators  did  write  into  said  petition  large 
numbers  of  spurious  names  and  forged  the  names  of  many  legal 
voters  of  the  state  thereon ;  and  by  reason  thereof  all  of  the  names 
in  that  part  of  the  petition,  verified  by  these  several  circulators, 
are  spurious  and  void,  and  their  affidavits  false.  The  part  of  the 
petition  thus  challenged,  includes  about  ten  thousand  names 
out  of  a  total  of  thirteen  thousand  six  hundred  fifteen.  Quite  [a] 
proportion  of  these  alleged  fraudulent  names  go  to  make  that 
part  of  the  petition  which  is  void  as  to  its  form.  These  charges 
of  fraud  and  conspiracy  made  in  the  complaint  are  denied  by  the 
answer,  and  the  plaintiff  has  the  burden  of  proof  as  to  that  issue. 

"As  the  taking  of  the  testimony  on  this  issue  progressed  at 
the  trial,  plaintiff  made  such  a  forcible  and  conclusive  case  of 
the  alleged  fraud  to  such  a  degree  that  defendant,  by  his  counsel, 
voluntarily  admitted  in  open  court  that  names  to  the  number  of 
at  least  3722  on  this  petition  were  and  are  fraudulent  and  void. 
.  .  .  The  public  interest  .  .  .  demands  that  the  full  extent  of 
the  fraud,  shown  by  the  plaintiff's  case,  be  considered  and  exposed 
to  public  view,  to  the  end  that  the  danger  to  public  institutions 
may  be  appreciated  and  some  corrective  remedy  applied  by  the 
legislative  branch  of  the  state  government.  Plaintiff's  evidence, 
viewed  in  its  entirety,  challenges  by  testimony  more  or  less  per- 
suasive, the  integrity  of  over  6000  names  on  the  petition  other 
than  those  admitted  by  the  defendant's  counsel  to  be  void.  .  .  . 

"Plaintiff  has  made  its  prima  facie  cause  of  fraud  against 
the  following  parts  of  the  petition  .  .  .  the  whole  aggregating 
some  6110  names,  which  do  not  include  3722  names  admitted  to 
be  fraudulent.  There  is  no  reason  why  defendant's  counsel 


The  Making  of  Petitions  67 

should  have  stopped  in  their  admissions  when  they  came  to  the 
work  of  Walter  B.  Thurber,  for  many  pages  of  his  part  of  the  peti- 
tion appear  to  be  almost  entirely  made  up  of  fraudulent  and  ficti- 
tious names.  Section  61  is  in  part  verified  by  Harry  Goldman, 
whose  other  work  in  this  petition  amounting  to  noo  names 
is  admitted  to  be  void  for  fraud.  The  work  of  C.  L.  Woolwein, 
who  verified  the  remainder  of  that  section,  is  scarcely  an  im- 
provement on  his  associate.  Sections  16,  59,  and  112  by  E. 
Wallace  ought  to  be  cast  out  if  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it  is 
admitted  that  his  true  name  is  E.  J.  Rahles,  but  there  is  shown  to 
be  fictitious  and  forged  names  therein,  put  therein  by  the  said 
Rahles  alias  Wallace.  Sections  31  and  105  verified  by  Charles 
Matthews  are  mostly  forgeries  upon  the  face  of  the  petition 
without  the  aid  of  extrinsic  or  other  evidence.  The  strongest 
evidence  of  the  alleged  fraud  is  the  petition  itself.  The  identity 
of  the  handwriting  in  the  face  of  the  petition  with  that  in  the 
affidavits  convicts  this  circulator  not  only  of  fraud,  but  of  falsify- 
ing his  own  oath  upon  the  witness  stand.  .  .  .  The  defendant's 
expert  witnesses  gave  testimony  tending  to  show  that  many 
names  in  Matthews'  petitions  were  written  by  one  and  the  same 
hand.  Besides  many  cases  of  specific  proof  of  forged  names  hi 
this  part  of  the  petition  are  shown,  none  of  which  has  in'any  way 
been  refuted  by  the  defense.  Many  names  have  been  judged 
to  be  bad  or  forgeries  by  the  defendant's  expert  witnesses.  The 
same  comments  may  be  made  as  to  the  work  of  F.  M.  Raymond, 
who,  it  appears,  fled  the  state  as  soon  as  the  investigation  of  this 
petition  began.  The  report  made  by  the  defendant's  expert 
witnesses  and  put  in  evidence  shows  that  they  examined  6753 
names,  and  found  only  2902  of  that  number  registered,  while 
3525  of  those  not  found  registered  reported  as  having  no  evi- 
dence in  the  appearance  of  the  writing  itself  sufficient  to  say  that 
they  were  fraudulent.  131  other  names  were  catalogued  as 
suspected  of  being  fraudulent,  and  195  were  listed  as  fraudulent 
and  void.  Of  these  registered  names,  1783  appear  upon  that 
part  of  the  petition  attacked  by  plaintiff's  proof,  and  deducting 


68     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

that  number  from  the  total  of  9788  disqualified  by  plaintiff's 
evidence  and  by  the  defendant's  admissions,  leaves  8003  names  as 
the  total  number  affected  by  plaintiff's  case,  and  not  overcome 
by  the  defendant.  Deducting  this  number  from  the  total  number 
on  the  petition,  leaves  but  5612  names  which  may  be  said  to 
represent  the  valid  part  of  the  petition  upon  this  view  of  the  case. 
This  does  not  take  into  account  more  than  200  names  which  on  a 
careful  computation  ought  to  be  deducted  for  duplication  and 
for  lack  of  proper  verification  by  omitting  a  name  from  the  affi- 
davit or  the  failure  of  the  circulator  to  sign  the  same."  1 

Investigation  of  charges  of  such  fraudulent  practices  is  very 
expensive,  and  generally  there  have  not  been  interests  suffi- 
ciently affected  by  the  proposed  legislation  to  provide  the 
necessary  funds  for  the  purpose.2 

In  addition  to  their  forgery  of  signatures,  circulators  of 
petitions  have  sometimes  been  guilty  of  misrepresenting  the 
nature  of  the  measures  included  in  the  petitions. 

In  the  case  of  at  least  one  measure  circulators  of  petitions 
have  been  bought  off  by  opponents  of  the  proposed  legislation,3 
and  in  another  case  a  promise  was  made,  with  apparent  power 
to  make  good  the  promise,  to  see  that  a  referendum  was  dropped 
upon  the  payment  of  a  stipulated  sum.4 

1  Friendly  v.  Olcott,  circuit  court  of  Marion  county,  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  22, 
191 1,  p.  3.  See  also  especially  Oregonian,  Oct.  6,  ign,  p.  16,  col.  i ;  Oct.  10,  1911, 
p.  8,  col.  2;  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  4,  1911,  p.  16,  col.  2.  The  supreme  court  was 
more  conservative  in  its  estimate  of  the  amount  of  fraud.  State  v.  Olcott,  Oregon 
Reports,  vol.  62,  pp.  277,  284  (1912). 

*  Cf.  Oregonian,  July  9,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i.    A  county  clerk  of  long  experience  testi- 
fied in  court  that  "he  did  not  remember  ever  having  checked  a  petition  where  all 
the  names  were  good.    In  liquor  license  petitions,  he  said,  usually  about  half  are 
bad,  and  in  nominating  petitions  about  twenty  per  cent  are  bad."    Oregon  Journal, 
Nov.  21,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

1  In  this  case  of  a  local  initiative  ordinance,  after  the  author  of  the  measure  dis- 
covered the  sale  of  petitions,  he  expressly  authorized  trusted  circulators  to  sell  some 
petitions,  and  used  the  proceeds  to  circulate  new  petitions. 

*  "His  interest  in  the  act  at  a  later  date  culminated  in  his  magnanimous  offer 
to  see  that  the  referendum  (which  had  been  started)  was  dropped.     He  was  willing 
to  accomplish  this  if  $1500  could  be  raised  for  the  purpose.     Since  this  couldn't  be 
done  he  promised  to  undertake  the  matter  for  various  other  sums  ranging  from  $1000 


The  Making  of  Petitions  69 

Of  course  these  outrageous  abuses  have  met  with  general  rep- 
robation. They  operate  to  discredit  the  whole  system  of 
direct  government.  "The  offense  is  not  merely  the  forgery  of 
names.  It  is  a  far  higher  moral  crime.  It  is  a  deliberate  as- 
sault on  the  sacred  instrumentalities  of  the  popular  legislation."  l 
"  It  can  be  said  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  if 
the  way  is  left  open  for  perpetration  of  fraud  in  making  up  peti- 
tions the  people  of  Oregon  will  repudiate  the  initiative  and 
referendum."  2 

But  it  is  very  difficult  to  control  these  abuses. 

In  the  absence  of  final  determination  of  the  question  by  the 
courts,  until  recently  the  authority  of  the  secretary  of  the  state 
in  dealing  with  irregularities  in  petitions  filed  in  his  office  has 
been  uncertain.3  But  it  is  now  decided  that  it  is  his  duty  in  the 
first  instance,  subject  to  a  review  by  the  courts,  to  determine  by 
inspection  of  the  petitions  whether  or  not  signatures  are  genuine 
and  regularly  authenticated.4  The  regularity  of  a  petition  may 
be  attacked  in  spite  of  apparent  regularity,8  but  proof  of  irregu- 
larity is  very  difficult. 

Of  course,  in  the  first  instance,  the  burden  of  proof  is  against 
the  existence  of  fraud  in  a  petition.6  However,  "as  the  circula- 
tor of  a  petition  is  the  agent  of  the  signer,  and  his  oath  is  the  only 

to  $400.  Inasmuch  as  the  $400  was  not  forthcoming  at  4  o'clock  on  the  last  day 
for  filing  the  referendum  petitions  they  were  duly  filed."  A.  H.  Eaton,  Eugene 
Register,  Nov.  4,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  4.  l  Oregon  Journal,  July  9,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

*  Eugene  Register,  Oct.  15,  1911,  p.  12,  col.  i. 

1  "As  the  courts  have  never  passed  on  the  authority  this  office  has  in  these  matters, 
no  standard  has  been  set  and  we  have  to  proceed  according  to  our  best  judgment. 
We  have  been  lenient  in  all  matters  where  a  mistake  might  be  merely  a  clerical  error, 
such  as  the  transcribing  of  the  names  on  the  back  of  the  sheets  of  the  petition,  but 
we  have  been  careful  as  to  verification  of  the  seal  and  the  affidavits."  Secretary 
of  state,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  June  13,  1913,  p.  21,  col.  4. 

4  Slate  v.  Okott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  67,  p.  214  (1913).  Contra,  State  v.  Olcott, 
ibid.,  vol.  62,  pp.  277,  279  (1912) ;  circuit  court  of  Marion  county,  Oregon  Journal, 
Sept.  2,  1913,  p.  i,  col.  i ;  Oregonian,  Sept.  3,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  2.  It  has  been  pro- 
posed to  make  the  secretary's  decision  final  in  case  of  the  acceptance  of  petitions. 
Reported  in  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  14,  1913,  p.  14,  col.  5. 

*  State  v.  Okott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  62,  pp.  277,  278  (1912). 

*  Woodward  v.  Barbur,  ibid.,  vol.  59,  pp.  70,  76  (1911). 


yo     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  signature,  it  follows  as  a  matter 
of  course  that,  when  he  is  shown  to  have  acted  fraudulently, 
the  value  of  his  verification  is  destroyed,  and  the  petition  must 
fall,  unless  the  genuine  signatures  are  affirmatively  shown.  But, 
in  the  absence  of  evidence  of  intentional  fraud  or  guilty  knowl- 
edge on  the  part  of  the  circulator,  it  would  be  an  unjust  rule  to 
deprive  the  honest  signer  of  his  right  to  have  his  signature 
counted,  merely  because  some  disqualified  person  signed,  or  be- 
cause some  person  without  the  knowledge  of  the  circulator 
affixed  a  fictitious  name,  or  gave  a  fictitious  address."  * 

The  great  difficulty,  at  times  amounting  to  practical  impossi- 
bility, of  disproving  the  genuineness  of  each  fraudulent  signature 
in  such  a  great  mass  of  signatures  is  clearly  apparent.  "Under 
our  present  laws,  as  interpreted  by  the  courts,  there  is  no  pro- 
tection against  fraud  and  forgery  or  crookedness  of  any  sort. 
All  that  is  necessary  is  to  practice  fraud  upon  a  scale  so  large  that 
detecting  and  proving  it  will  be  a  task  so  large  and  so  expensive 
as  to  deter  any  one  from  attempting  it."  2 

Under  the  original  law  the  initiative  and  referendum  petitions 
were  checked  up  by  the  county  clerks,  who  compared  the  signa- 
tures with  the  registration  books,  and  certified  as  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  signatures  to  the  secretary  of  state.3  But  the  clerks 
objected  to  this  burden  of  work,4  and  under  the  act  of  1907  initia- 
tive and  referendum  petitions  are  verified  by  affidavit  of  the 
circulators.6  Under  the  existing  law  comparison  with  the  regis- 
tration books  is  thus  made  a  matter  of  great  difficulty. 

But  many  signers  of  petitions  have  not  registered,  and  hence 
comparisons  are  in  such  cases  impossible.  This  has  caused  an 
agitation  for  a  change  in  the  law  to  require  registration  as  a  qual- 
ification for  signing  petitions.  "None  but  registered  voters 
should  be  permitted  to  sign  initiative  and  referendum  petitions. 

1  State  v.  Okott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  62,  pp.  277,  286  (1012).     See  also  State  v. 
Okott,  ibid.,  vol.  67,  p.  214  (1913).         *  Eugene  Register,  Oct.  23,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i. 
8  Laws,  1903,  p.  244,  sec.  3.  *  Oregonian,  Jan.  21,  1907,  p.  9,  col.  i. 

*Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec  3;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  2. 


The  Making  of  Petitions  71 

Each  petition  should  have  a  precinct  heading  and  signatures 
should  be  taken  accordingly.  This  would  enable  county  clerks 
to  quickly  check  the  signatures  and  when  necessary  certify  the 
list  to  the  secretary  of  state.  As  the  matter  now  stands  it  is 
physically  impossible  for  the  secretary  of  state  to  check  the  signa- 
tures on  the  petitions  filed  in  his  office."  1 

Illegibility  of  signatures  does  not  invalidate  them,2  and  this 
leaves  a  way  open  for  fraud.3  Further,  it  is  uncertain  as  to  how 
definitely  the  signers'  residence  must  be  indicated  in  the  peti- 
tions.4 Because  of  complaint  by  circulators  of  petitions  that 
some  persons  had  signed  fictitious  names,5  a  provision  of  law 
was  enacted  requiring  a  clause  to  be  inserted  in  every  petition 
warning  signers  that  forgeries  of  signatures,  etc. ,  on  petitions  are 
felonies,6  but  this  provision  has  been  held  to  be  directory 
only.7 

As  the  earlier  statutory  provisions  8  were  interpreted,  although 
it  was  required  that  every  sheet  for  petitioners'  signatures  must 
be  attached  to  "  a  full  and  complete  copy  of  the  title  and  text " 
of  the  measure  proposed  by  initiative  petition,  no  such  require- 
ment applied  to  referendum  petitions,  in  case  of  which  any 

1  Governor  West's  Message,  1913,  p.  21.  See  also  circuit  court  of  Marion  county, 
Oregon  Journal,  Sept.  2,  1913,  p.  i,  col.  i ;  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  16,  1915,  p.  i,  col.  3  ; 
Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  no.  362,  sec.  ib,  pp.  210,  221-2  ;  Senate  Joint  Resolutions, 
1915,  nos.  6,  7  ;  California  Laws,  1913,  ch.  138.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  under  con- 
stitutional provision  petitions  may  be  signed  by  "legal  voters,"  the  qualification  of 
registration  cannot  be  imposed  without  a  constitutional  amendment.  Woodward  v. 
Barbur,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  59,  p.  75  (1911) ;  State  v.  Olcotl,  ibid.,  vol.  67,  p.  214 
(1913) ;  State  v.  Dalles  City,  Pacific  Reporter  (Oregon),  vol.  143,  pp.  1127,  1136 
(1914).  Senate  Joint  Resolutions,  1915,  nos.  6,  7,  provided  for  such  constitutional 
amendment.  Senate  Joint  Resolution,  1915,  no.  8,  made  similar  provision  in  regard 
to  the  recall.  *  Slate  v.  Okott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  67,  p.  214  (1913). 

3  Cf.  Eugene  Register,  Oct.  23,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

4  Report  of  Attorney  General,  1906-8,  p.  124.    Absence  of  the  street  address  of  the 
signer  will  not  invalidate  the  petition.    Stale  v.  Okott,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  67,  p.  214 
(1913).  6  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregonian,  June  2,  1907,  p.  38,  col.  i. 

1  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  2;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3471. 

7  Stevens  v.  Benson,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  50,  pp.  269,  275  (1907) ;  Report  of  Attor- 
ney General,  1906-8,  p.  124. 

8  Laws,  1903,  p.  244,  sec.  2 ;  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  2. 


72     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

number  of  sheets  might  be  attached  to  one  copy  of  the  measure.1 
It  is  obvious  that  such  a  condition  opened  the  way  to  gross  fraud. 
"Sheets  of  names  can  be  transferred  from  one  petition  to 
another.  Signers  can  be  readily  deceived.  When  the  voter 
signs  a  referendum  petition,  he  will  have  no  assurance  that  his 
name  will  be  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  he  gives  it."  2  Re- 
cently the  statute  has  been  amended  to  put  referendum  petitions 
on  the  same  footing  with  initiative  petitions  in  this  respect.3 

Another  recent  act  of  the  legislature  is  intended  to  aid  in  the 
elimination  of  fraud  in  petitions.  The  law  had  previously  re- 
quired that  the  circulator  should  make  an  oath  that  the  signer 
signed  the  petition  in  his  presence  and  that  he  believed  the 
signer  had  stated  his  name,  post-office  address,  and  residence 
correctly,  and  was  a  legal  voter.4  The  act  of  1913,  in  addition 
to  this  provision,  requires  that  the  circulator  shall  make  affi- 
davit to  the  effect  that  he  is  "personally  acquainted"  with  all 
those  who  sign  the  petition.5  A  strict  construction  and  enforce- 
ment of  this  new  law  doubtless  "would  operate  as  a  check  upon 
the  present  promiscuous  securing  of  signatures  to  initiative  and 
referendum  petitions  and  accomplish  much  in  eradicating  from 
the  circulation  of  them  the  fraud  which  has  been  in  evidence  for 
the  last  few  years."6  But  it  was  predicted  that  enforcement 
would  be  difficult.  "The  men  to  whom  petition  circulating 
offers  attractive  remuneration  are  not  as  a  rule  men  of  wide 
acquaintance.  If  they  were  actually  to  solicit  only  the  signatures 
of  men  whom  they  personally  knew,  petition  circulating  would 
be  an  arduous  and  ill-paid  occupation.  Yet  it  is  not  to  be  con- 
fidently expected  that  there  will  be  any  change  of  method  of 

1  Palmer  v.  Benson,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  50,  p.  277 ;  State  v.  Olcott,  ibid.,  vol.  62, 
pp.  277,  282  (1912). 

*  Eugene  Register,  July  25,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i.    See  also  Report  of  Attorney  General, 
1906-8,  p.  139;  Friendly  v.  Olcott,  circuit  court  of  Marion  county,  Eugene  Register. 
Dec.  22,  1911,  p.  i,  col.  i ;  Eakin,  C.  J.,  dissenting,  State  v.  Okott,  Oregon  Reports, 
vol.  62,  pp.  277,  288  (1912).  3  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359.  sec.  i. 

4  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  3.  *  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  2. 

*  Eugene  Register,  July  15,  1913,  p.  3,  col.  i.     See  also  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in 
Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1913,  p.  2,  col.  5. 


The  Making  of  Petitions  73 

paid  circulators  under  the  operations  of  the  new  law.  They  will 
continue  to  approach  loafers  in  the  park  blocks  and  saloons  and 
other  places  where  indifferent  and  uninformed  voters  congregate. 
The  new  verification  is  identical  with  that  which  has  heretofore 
been  required  of  circulators  of  nominating  petitions  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge  that  nominating  petitions  have 
been  filled  wherever  the  circulators  could  find  strangers  willing 
to  sign."  1  And,  to  a  considerable  extent  at  least,  this  is  the 
actual  experience  under  the  new  law.  Indeed  a  strict  enforce- 
ment of  the  law  might  unduly  impede  honest  petition-making.2 

At  present  the  criminal  law  does  not  make  punishable  the 
greatest  misrepresentations  of  the  circulators.3  Neither  is 
the  soliciting  or  giving  of  money  to  suppress  petitions  covered 
by  the  criminal  law.4  It  is  apparent  that  the  corrupt-practices 
act  should  be  extended  to  cover  all  the  operations  connected  with 
direct  legislation. 

At  this  time  there  are  absolutely  no  legal  qualifications  pre- 
scribed for  circulators  of  petitions,  except  of  course  that  they 
must  be  able  to  understand  the  significance  of  the  affidavit 
required  of  them.  In  order  to  reduce  the  number  of  irrespon- 
sible persons  engaging  in  this  occupation,  it  has  been  urged  that 
the  circulator  should  at  least  be  a  registered  voter  and  able  to 
supply  "some  written  testimonyas  to  his  good  moral  character."6 
"If  one  is  a  registered  voter  and  can  produce  recommendations 
from  three  freeholders  he  ordinarily  can  be  trusted."  6  A  bill 
which  failed  to  pass  the  last  legislative  assembly  provided  that 
no  person  might  solicit  more  than  two  hundred  names  without 
first  securing  a  license  from  the  governor.7  Another  proposition 

I0regonian,  Dec.  15,  1013,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

1  This  danger  does  not  seem  to  have  been  apprehended  by  defenders  of  the  system 
of  direct  legislation.  Cf.  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1913,  p. 
2,  col.  5.  s  Cf.  Oregonian,  June  6,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

4  Ibid.,  July  9,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i.  But  the  corrupt-practices  act  covers  improper 
inducement  to  vote  for  or  to  refrain  from  voting  for  measures  submitted.  Laws, 
1909,  ch.  3,  sec.  31 ;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3515. 

*  Oregonian,  Dec.  15,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i.  *  Ibid.,  Dec.  18,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i. 

7  House  Bill,  1913,  no.  365, 


74     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

goes  farther,  and  would  make  the  circulator  of  petitions  a  public 
officer.1 

But  the  only  proper  solution  of  the  difficulty  —  which 
would  reach  other  difficulties  in  the  system  as  well  —  would  seem 
to  be  abolition  of  the  circulation  of  petitions  altogether,  and  the 
substitution  of  something  else  in  its  place. 

5 

Substitutes  for  Circulation 

For  several  years  it  has  been  urged  that  as  a  substitute  for 
the  circulation  of  petitions,  petitions  should  be  left  in  charge 
of  the  registration  officers 2  of  the  county  and  signed  only  in  the 
presence  of  the  officer.3  "Prohibiting  the  circulation  of  initia- 
tive and  referendum  petitions  and  requiring  that  they  be  left 
with  some  constituted  authority  where  petitioners  may  go  and 
voluntarily  affix  their  signatures  is  desirable  for  several  reasons. 
One  is  that  it  offers  a  feasible  means  of  checking  the  fraud  and 

1  "The  governor  shall  appoint  and  authorize  persons  to  circulate  initiative  and 
referendum  petitions  in  like  manner  and  subject  to  like  conditions  of  character  and 
fitness  as  may  be  required  by  the  governor  for  the  appointment  of  notaries  public,  and 
any  person  so  authorized  and  appointed  to  circulate  initiative  and  referendum  peti- 
tions shall  also  give  a  sufficient  bond  to  the  people  of  Oregon,  in  the  sum  of  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  conditional  for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duties  and  compliance 
with  the  laws  of  Oregon,  in  soliciting  and  verifying  signatures  of  such  petitions  .  .  . 
and  every  such  appointment  shall  be  for  the  period  of  two  years  from  the  date  of  the 
appointment."  House  Bill,  1913,  no.  365,  sec.  2.  See  also  J.  D.  Wheelan,  Oregon 
Journal,  Nov.  6,  1913,  p.  9,  col.  4. 

*  It  has  also  been  suggested  that  signatures  should  be  made  before  the  election 
judges  at  the  primary  election.  H.  Denglinger,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  5,  1913,  p.  8, 
col.  4.  "If  the  proper  period  were  established  between  the  date  of  the  primary  and 
the  date  of  the  general  election  the  posting  of  petitions  in  the  election  booths  on 
primary  days  would  be  the  ideal  plan.  They  would  then  be  subject  to  official 
supervision,  accessible  only  to  registered  voters  and  be  conveniently  available  for 
perusal  and  consideration  by  every  one  entitled  to  sign."  Oregonian,  Jan.  2,  1914, 
p.  10,  col.  2. 

1  E.g.,  P.  Hume's  resolution,  Oregonian,  June  16,  1909,  p.  10,  col.  i ;  W.  G.  D. 
Mercer,  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  14,  1913,  p.  n,  col.  i ;  Oregonian,  Mar.  13,  1915,  p.  8, 
col.  i.  See  House  Joint  Resolution,  1915,  no.  2 ;  Senate  Bill,  1915,  no.  59;  Washing- 
ton Laws,  1915,  ch.  54,  sec.  7. 


The  Making  of  Petitions  75 

forgery  that  is  becoming  an  annual  scandal  and  that  threatens 
to  bring  popular  government  into  disfavor.  Another  is  that 
petitions  could  thus  be  made  to  express  genuine  opinion.  Every- 
one knows  that  under  the  present  system  petitions  do  not  ex- 
press real  opinion.  They  are  signed  for  a  variety  of  reasons, 
among  which  are  desire  to  be  rid  of  the  solicitor  or  to  help  him 
earn  a  day's  wages,  and  the  natural  tendency  to  do  that  which 
is  requested  providing  it  costs  nothing.  Petitions  signed  volun- 
tarily by  persons  who  would  take  the  trouble  to  go  to  the  regis- 
tration clerk  and  affix  their  names  would  be  a  real  call  from  the 
people  for  initiating  or  referring  any  measure.  The  professional 
tinkerer  would  be  left  out  in  the  cold,  for  he  would  have  to  have 
a  legitimate  proposition  before  he  could  hope  for  a  hearing."  * 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  apprehension  that  such  a 
provision  would  render  petition-making  so  difficult  that  it  would 
practically  nullify  the  initiative  and  referendum.2  However, 
this  objection  might  be  overcome  by  a  reduction  of  the  percent- 
ages of  signatures  now  required.3  A  provision  which  would 
result  in  securing  "representative"  signatures  would  be  prefer- 
able to  the  present  plan,  even  if  the  number  of  signatures  required 
should  be  very  materially  reduced. 

Less  reduction  would  be  necessary  perhaps,  if,  as  has  been 
widely  urged  recently,4  petitions  were  allowed. to  be  placed  in 
charge  of  responsible  persons  at  places  of  business  and  other 
convenient  places  designated  as  depositories,  as  well  as  with  the 
registration  officers.5  With  the  percentages  now  required,  in 

1  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  18,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

1  E.g.,  A.  D.  Cridge,  Oregon  Journal,  Dec.  4,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  5;  W.  S.  U'Ren, 
quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1913,  p.  2,  col.  3 ;  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  22,  1915, 
p.  6,  col.  i. 

*  Reduction  from  eight  to  six  per  cent  for  initiative  petitions,  and  from  five  to 
three  per  cent  for  referendum  petitions,  has  been  suggested.    G.  Parrish,  reported  in 
Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  i,  1915,  p.  2,  col.  3.       4  Oregonian,  Dec.  15,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

*  Voting  for  measures  at  the  primary  election  has  been  offered  as  a  substitute  for 
the  signature  of  petitions.     "Have  all  proposed  laws  listed,  in  the  first  place,  on  the 
primary  ballots,  where  they  could  be  voted  on  the  same  as  candidates,  only  those 
measures  which  should  receive  the  legal  proportion  of  primary  votes  to  be  allowed  on 


76     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

case  of  many  really  popular  measures  the  method  of  placing 
petitions  in  designated  places  and  advertising  for  signatures  has 
met  with  disappointing  results.1 

"Attention  to  a  proposal  can  be  attracted  by  a  dozen  different 
methods  and  opportunities  for  voluntary  subscribing  thereto 
can  be  arranged  in  a  dozen  different  ways  "  —  the  platform,  press, 
billboard,  hand  bill,  circular,  public  address,  personal  solicita- 
tion, etc.2 

Any  necessity  for  making  registration  a  prerequisite  to  signing 
a  petition 3  vanishes  with  the  provision  for  signature  at  official  de- 
positories, for  such  signature  amounts  practically  to  registration.4 

It  has  been  proposed  that  the  verdict  of  a  jury  to  the  effect 
that  the  enactment  of  a  measure  by  the  legislative  assembly 

the  ballots  of  the  general  election.  .  .  .  This  proposal  would  in  no  way  interfere 
with  any  one  presenting  any  bill  he  chose,  but  it  would  certainly  insure  against  any 
bill  going  on  the  general  ballot  for  which  there  was  not  a  sincere  demand  by  a  legal 
percentage  of  voters."  H.  Denglinger,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  5,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  4. 
(See  also  J.  L.  Schuyleman,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Dec.  14,  1913,  p.  15,  col  4; 
F.  E.  Olson,  Oregonian,  Jan.  n,  1914,  p.  17,  col.  3.)  Of  course  this  is  a  practical 
equivalent  to  the  signature  of  petitions  in  the  presence  of  the  election  officers.  The 
plan  is  objectionable  in  that  it  would  increase  the  load  of  the  already  overloaded 
primary  ballot. 

A  modification  of  this  plan  provides  for  placing  measures  on  the  primary  ballot 
upon  the  payment  of  a  two-hundred-dollar  filing  fee.  This  is  even  more  objection- 
able, for  it  would  not  only  lengthen  the  primary  ballot,  but  would  doubtless  very 
greatly  add  to  the  number  of  initiative  and  referendum  measures  submitted  to  the 
voters.  "The  trouble  with  the  Crawford  plan  is  that  it  puts  the  proposal  of  initia- 
tive measures  upon  a  strictly  cash  basis  —  and  a  cash  basis  at  that  which  is  smaller 
than  the  present  cost  of  circulating  petitions.  It  gives  the  people  no  opportunity 
to  prevent  the  overloading  of  the  ballot  with  useless  measures.  There  are  already 
too  many  on  the  ballot  at  every  election,  and  this  measure  would  probably  result 
in  increasing  the  number  many  times."  Eugene  Register,  Apr.  16,  1914,  p.  4,  col.  i. 
Cf.  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  2,  1914,  p.  8,  col.  2.  An  act  of  1915  permits  the  payment 
of  a  filing  fee  as  an  alternative  to  the  circulation  of  a  petition  in  direct  primary  elec- 
tions. Laws,  1915,  ch.  124.  l  Above,  pp.  59-60. 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  Dec.  15, 1913,  p.  6,  col.  i ;  Jan.  2,  1914,  p.  10,  col.  i ;  House  Joint 
Resolution,  1915,  no.  2.  "Elimination  or  modification  of  the  form  of  verification 
would  be  necessary,  but  with  the  signing  wholly  voluntary  verification  need  not  be 
hedged  about  with  many  safeguards."  Oregonian,  Dec.  15,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

1  Above,  pp.  70-1. 

4  Letter  in  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  14,  1913,  p.  n  ;  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  18,  1913, 
p.  4,  col.  i. 


The  Making  of  Petitions  77 

was  induced  by  any  form  of  "  undue  influence  "  should  operate 
as  a  referendum  petition.1 

1  This  alternative  to  referendum  petitions  was  contained  in  a  proposed  initiative 
constitutional  amendment,  but  was  eliminated  before  the  amendment  was  submitted 
to  the  people  in  1910.  "  Any  ten  citizen  freeholders  shall  have  right  to  unite  in  bring- 
ing an  action  in  the  circuit  court  at  the  seat  of  government  against  any  measure  within 
ten  days  after  it  is  passed  by  the  legislative  assembly,  alleging  that  the  same  was 
passed  by  bargaining,  trading,  logrolling  or  other  forms  of  undue  influence.  Sum- 
mons and  a  copy  of  the  complaint  shall  be  served  upon  the  attorney-general  and  the 
presiding  officers  of  both  houses  as  other  process  is  served.  The  attorney-general 
shall  defend  the  action,  but  senators  and  representatives  may  employ  assistant 
counsel.  The  case  shall  be  advanced  on  the  docket  if  necessary  and  tried  within 
twenty  days  after  the  close  of  the  session.  The  verdict  of  the  jury  shall  be  on  pre- 
ponderance of  evidence.  If  the  jury  finds  from  the  evidence  that  they  believe  the 
bill  was  passed  by  any  undue  influence,  that  verdict  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary 
of  state ;  and  as  to  such  measure  the  verdict  shall  have  the  same  effect  as  a  petition 
for  the  referendum ;  said  bill  shall  be  referred  to  the  people  by  the  secretary  of  state 
for  approval  or  rejection  at  the  next  regular  election.  Senators,  representatives, 
officers,  and  other  persons  may  be  subpoenaed  and  compelled  to  testify  after  the  close 
of  the  session,  but  they  shall  not  be  prosecuted  criminally  or  civilly  for  any  action 
to  which  they  shall  testify."  W.  S.  U'Ren  and  others,  Senate  Document,  no.  603, 
6ist  Congress,  2d  session,  p.  157,  sec.  37  (IQIO).  Reprinted  in  Beard  and  Shultz, 
Documents  on  the  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  pp.  373-4  (1912).  Apparently 
the  proposition  was  not  generally  well  received. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  MULTIPLICITY  OF  MEASURES 

i 
The  Number  of  Measures 

WHEN  the  system  of  direct  legislation  was  established  it  was 
believed  that  the  people  would  not  often  use  their  reserve  power.1 
Direct  legislation  was  to  be  "the  medicine  of  the  constitution, 
cautiously  administered  when  occasion  might  require;  not  its 
daily  bread."  2  But  the  "  hope  that  there  would  be  so  much  con- 
sideration and  self-restraint  on  all  sides  that  the  new  methods 
would  not  be  pushed  to  the  extreme,  but  would  be  used  only  on 
rare  occasions  for  remedial  purposes,"  was,  it  was  declared, 
even  before  the  ballot  had  reached  its  present  length,  "a  falla- 
cious hope."  3 

Since  the  system  of  direct  legislation  was  established  there 
have  been  six  general  elections  and  one  special  election  at  which 
measures  have  been  submitted  to  the  people.  The  provision 
for  another  special  election,  in  1903,  was  conditional  upon  the 
referring  of  a  certain  act  of  the  assembly  by  petition,  and  the 
referendum  was  not  invoked.  At  the  special  election  held  in 
1913  only  measures  referred  by  petition  could  be  submitted. 
At  the  election  of  1904  three  measures  were  submitted,  one  a 
proposal  for  a  constitutional  amendment  referred  by  the  as- 
sembly, and  two  initiative  bills.  In  1906  eleven  measures  were 
submitted,  including  five  initiative  measures  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  five  initiative  bills,  and  one  act  referred 

1  Oregonian,  June  30,  1902,  p.  8,  col.  3. 
*  Reported  in  Oregonian,  Feb.  18,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  i. 
1  Oregonian,  July  6,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  i. 
78 


The  Multiplicity  of  Measures  79 

by  petition.  In  1908  the  number  of  propositions  increased  to 
nineteen,  of  which  four  were  constitutional  amendments  referred 
by  the  assembly,  six  constitutional  amendments  initiated  by 
petition,  five  were  bills  so  initiated,  and  four  were  acts  referred 
by  petition.  In  1910  the  number  increased  to  thirty-two.  Four 
of  these  were  constitutional  amendments  referred  by  the  assembly, 
two  were  acts  referred  by  the  assembly  (neither  of  these  could 
be  enacted  finally  by  the  legislature),  seven  were  constitutional 
amendments  initiated  by  petition,  eighteen  were  bills  so  initiated, 
and  the  other  was  an  act  referred  by  petition.  There  were  thirty- 
seven  l  measures  in  1 9 1 2 .  Of  these  six  were  constitutional  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  assembly  and  eight  by  petition,  twenty 
bills  proposed  by  petition,  and  three  acts  referred  by  petition.  At 
the  special  election  of  1913, — at  which  only  measures  referred  by 
petition  could  be  submitted  —  five  acts  were  referred  by  peti- 
tion. At  the  election  of  1914  —  at  which  measures  referred  by 
petition  could  not  be  submitted  —  there  were  twenty-nine 
measures  on  the  ballot, — ten  proposed  by  the  legislative  assembly, 
including  eight  constitutional  amendments  and  two  acts  and 
nineteen  measures  initiated  by  petition,  including  eleven  consti- 
tutional amendments  and  eight  bills.  The  two  elections  of  1913 
and  1914  may  for  some  purposes  be  considered  complementary 
parts  of  one  election,  at  which  thirty-four  measures  were  sub- 
mitted.2 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  people  have  voted  on  sixty  consti- 
tutional amendments  and  seventy-six  statutes,  a  total  of  one 
hundred  and  thirty-six  measures,  of  which  twenty-seven  were  re- 
ferred by  the  legislative  assembly,  and  the  one  hundred  and  nine 
others  initiated  (ninety-five)  or  referred  (fourteen)  by  petition. 
The  submission  of  equivalents,  or  substantial  equivalents,  of 

1  Thirty-eight  measures  appear  in  the  voters'  pamphlet,  but  one  of  them,  a  law 
referred  by  petition,  was  kept  off  the  ballot  by  action  of  the  court. 

1  Three  constitutional  amendments  and  no  statutes  were  submitted  by  the  legis- 
lative assembly  of  1915  to  the  regular  election  to  be  held  next  year.  Provision  was 
made  for  a  special  election  in  1915  in  case  any  acts  of  the  session  should  be  referred 
by  petition,  but  no  referendum  petitions  were  filed. 


8o     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

measures  rejected  by  the  voters  at  previous  elections  is  an  es- 
tablished practice.  Perhaps  a  dozen  measures  on  the  ballot 
of  1914  may  be  said  to  have  been  before  the  voters  previously 
in  one  form  or  another. 

But  the  amount  of  legislation  attempted  is  not  fully  indicated 
by  the  mere  number  of  measures  submitted,  since  many  of  them 
have  been  extremely  complicated.1  And  it  must  be  remembered 
that  except  in  case  a  special  election  (even  at  the  special  state 
election  of  1913  local  elections  were  held  in  some  parts  of  the 
state)  to  consider  the  measures  is  called,  at  the  same  election 
numerous  candidates  for  office,  both  state  and  local,  must  be 
considered ;  that  local  measures  may  also  appear  on  the  same 
ballot ;  and  that  other  local  measures  and  candidates  for  local 
offices  may  be  voted  for  at  an  election  held  soon  after.  "The 
sample  ballot  for  the  state  election  of  1912  is  a  dark  yellow  broad- 
side, thirty-four  inches  long  and  eighteen  inches  wide,  and  it 
therefore  contains  six  hundred  and  twelve  square  inches  or 
about  four  and  one-half  square  feet.  It  is  nearly  as  large  as  two 
ordinary  newspaper  pages,  and  contains  the  names  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-six  candidates  for  office  and  the  titles  of  forty 
separate  measures  submitted  under  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum. On  November  2,  three  days  before  the  general  election, 
the  Portland  public  will  at  a  special  election  pass  on  the  new  city 
charter  and  the  various  charter  amendments.  There  are  two 
proposed  charters  and  twenty  charter  amendments.  The 
ballot  is  no  such  barn-door  affair  as  the  state  ballot,  but  it  does 
fairly  well  in  size  and  variety.  Here,  then,  is  a  total  of  sixty-two 
measures  the  electorate  must  study  under  the  referendum,  and 
176  candidates  whose  merits  it  must  consider.  The  grand  total 
for  the  inspection  and  determination  of  the  intelligent  voter  is 
therefore  238  separate  and  distinct  items.  Yet  there  are  people 
who  think  the  tendency  of  the  times  is  toward  the  short  ballot 
and  simplification  of  issues."  * 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  Aug.  18,  1912,  sec.  3,  p.  4,  col.  i. 
*  Oregonian,  Oct.  25,  1912,  p.  12,  col.  2. 


The  Multiplicity  of  Measures  81 

2 
The  Burden  on  the  Voters 

The  friends  of  direct  legislation  early  sounded  warning  against 
overworking  the  system.  "There  are  so  many  things  to  cover 
in  an  election,  so  many  features  to  consider,  and  the  ballot  can 
be  made  so  complicated,  that  the  average  voter  becomes  con- 
fused, with  the  outcome  that  the  very  best  result  is  not  secured. 
The  real  friends  of  the  initiative  law  will  be  slow  to  invoke  its 
aid,  and  when  they  do  it  will  be  to  remedy  a  manifest  evil  that  it 
is  ordinarily  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  reach. "  1  But "  the  bur- 
den of  the  ballot"  has  grown  from  year  to  year  until  it  is  undeni- 
able that  abuse  of  the  power  of  the  people  is  becoming  an  issue.2 

This  burden  greatly  overtaxes  the  capacity  of  the  voters,  to  a 
certain  extent  thereby  defeats  the  purpose  of  the  system  of  direct 
legislation,  and  even,  it  has  been  feared,  endangers  the  existence 
of  that  system. 

It  is  no  reflection  upon  the  intelligence  of  the  voters  to  say  that 
it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  them  adequately  to  consider  such 
masses  of  legislative  proposals.  "  The  excess  of  such  questions  on 
a  single  ballot  constitutes  a  weakness  of  the  system  of  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum  as  worked  out  in  the  far  western  state. 
There  may  be  a  score  of  important  measures  calling  for  the  vote 
of  the  people  at  one  time  or  another,  as  the  people  may  become 
well  informed  enough  to  decide  upon  them ;  but  it  is  absurd  to 
put  many  of  them  up  to  the  people  at  a  single  election.  .  .  . 
Scattering  the  attention  of  the  voters  among  several  questions  of 
much  importance  must  tend  to  weaken  the  popular  judgment." 3 

Moreover,  these  excesses  may  defeat  the  purpose  of  direct 
legislation.  They  certainly  tend  to  discourage  the  voter,  and 
may  lead  him  "to  vote  negatively  in  all  measures,  those  that 
ought  to  pass  included."  4 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  31,  igo6,  p.  4,  col.  2.    J  Oregonian,  July  5, 1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 
*  Springfield  (Mass.)  Republican,  reprinted  in  Oregonian,  July  23, 1912,  p.  8,  col.  5. 
4  Oregon  Journal,  June  6,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  i. 
G 


82     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

Finally,  it  is  feared  by  friends  of  the  system  that  its  overuse 
will  bring  reaction  and  endanger  its  existence.  "To  the  present 
numerous  enemies,  open  and  secret,  of  the  initiative,  there  may 
be  added  many  present  friends  who  will  become  disgusted  with 
the  miscellaneous  and  futile  flood  of  measures  offered.  Speaking 
as  a  proved  defender  of  the  system,  The  Journal  looks  upon  the 
growing  number  of  ballot  measures  as  a  matter  of  more  or  less 
gravity.  It  fully  realizes  that  a  time  might  come  when  its  ene- 
mies could  muster  greater  numerical  strength  than  could  its 
friends  and  the  system  be  either  scuttled  or  abandoned."  * 

Of  course  the  same  excesses  may  be  found  in  the  legislative 
assembly,  and  this  is  some  comfort  to  the  friends  of  direct  legis- 
lation.2 

3 

The  Causes  and  the  Remedies 

Many  measures  have  appeared  on  the  ballot  because  under  the 
terms  of  the  constitution  the  approval  of  the  voters  is  required 
in  such  cases.  This  is  true  of  all  the  measures,  except  two  acts, 
referred  to  the  people  by  the  legislative  assembly.  And  the  ad- 
verse action  of  the  people  at  a  previous  election  upon  similar 
proposals  made  the  final  enactment  of  these  two  measures  by  the 
assembly  impracticable.  The  initiative  was  the  only  method 
under  the  provision  of  law  then  in  force,  for  the  determination  of 
the  numerous  county-division  proposals  which  were  submitted 
to  the  voters. 

Many  other  measures  have  come  before  the  people  on  account 
of  the  "sins  of  omission"  or  the  "sins  of  commission"  of  the 
legislative  assembly.3 

A  feeling  that,  at  least  in  some  matters  of  legislation,  the  peo- 
ple are,  under  any  circumstances,  better  qualified  than  the  as- 
sembly has  doubtless  caused  some  use  of  direct  legislation.  "I 

1  Oregon  Journal,  June  6,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  i.    *  Cf.  ibid..  Mar.  8,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  3. 
1  Below,  pp.  159-63. 


The  Multiplicity  of  Measures  83 

have  decided  that  the  cause  of  good  roads  will  be  advanced  rather 
than  checked  if  highway  bills  are  given  to  the  initiative  rather 
than  to  the  legislature.  ...  I  am  of  the  firm  opinion  that  the 
laws  for  roads  should  be  put  up  to  the  people.  It  is  a  matter 
of  greatest  importance,  and  one  affecting  the  interests  of  every 
man,  woman  and  child  in  the  state.  Therefore,  I  believe  the 
people  should  be  given  the  best  opportunity  to  express  their 
desires  in  so  important  a  matter.  Undoubtedly  the  initiative 
furnishes  the  best  opportunity."  1 

Part  of  the  ballot's  burden  has  been  due  to  the  desire  to  dem- 
onstrate that  the  system  of  direct  legislation  is  all  that  has 
been  claimed  for  it  by  its  supporters.  "  We  should  do  something 
with  the  power  as  soon  as  possible,  and  should  continue  doing. 
When  a  farm  machinery  agent  has  a  good  machine,  he  always 
wants  you  to  see  it  work  in  the  field.  We  believe  our  new  ma- 
chine is  a  good  one  for  making  laws.  Let  us  offer  the  field  tests. 
.  .  .  Where  we  have  direct  legislation  we  should  show  that  it 
really  is  in  practice  all  that  in  theory  it  promises  to  be.  Per- 
haps no  measure  that  is  offered  to  the  people  will  win  the  first 
time,  but  that  is  not  the  point  —  the  important  thing  to  do  is 
to  show  that  the  people  can  and  will  use  it."2  "It  was  but 
natural  that  everybody  should  desire  to  see  the  system  tried 
out."3 

Doubtless  some  of  the  overuse  of  the  system  has  been  due  to 
"overstrained  logic."  4  "There  is  always  temptation  to  ride  a 
good  horse  to  death."  6 

Perhaps  the  "newness"  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  may 
still  explain  some  of  their  use.  "It  is  the  bent  of  the  race  to 
always  overuse  a  new  thing.  .  .  .  When  the  right  of  referen- 
dum and  initiative  was  given  the  people  it  was  but  natural  that 
they  would  be  tempted  to  overuse  the  new  power.  The  newness 

1  Governor  West,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Sept.  29,  ion,  p.  i,  col.  5.  Below, 
pp.  159-63-  *  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Direct  Legislation  Record,  vol.  7,  p.  60  (1901). 

8  Oregon  Journal,  July  6,  1914,  p.  6,  col.  i. 
4  Oregonian,  Aug.  30,  1009,  p.  6,  col.  i. 
s  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  5,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  2. 


84     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

will  presently  wear  off  and  then  the  resort  to  either  will  not  be 
undertaken  except  in  cases  of  great  provocation  or  unusual 
necessity."  l 

Haste  to  secure  the  enactment  of  law  is  another  motive  for 
substituting  direct  legislation  for  action  by  the  legislature, 
especially  in  the  case  of  constitutional  amendments.  For 
several  months  can  thus  be  saved  in  case  of  statutes,  and  two 
years  in  case  of  constitutional  amendments. 

As  above  explained,2  the  extreme  ease  of  securing  signatures 
to  petitions  heretofore  has  been  a  condition  most  favorable  to 
the  lengthening  of  the  ballot.  If  this  condition  were  remedied, 
it  would  seem  that  the  causes  which  operate  to  bring  legislative 
measures  before  the  people  would  not  generally  result  in  the  sub- 
mission of  an  unreasonable  number  of  measures  at  the  elections. 

But  in  the  absence  of  reform  in  this  direction,  it  has  been 
seriously  proposed  to  place  arbitrary  limitations  upon  the 
number  of  measures,  particularly  initiative  measures,  allowed 
at  any  election,  and  upon  the  resubmission  of  measures  once 
defeated.  It  has  been  suggested  that  only  three  or  five  bills  shall 
be  allowed  on  the  ballot,  and  only  one,  two  or  three  constitu- 
tional amendments,  or  that  no  more  than  a  dozen  measures  all 
together  shall  be  allowed,  and  that  measures  offered  shall  take 
precedence  according  to  excess  number  of  signatures  or  according 
to  the  order  of  filing.3 

But  these  proposals  have  met  with  little  favor.  It  is  clear  that 
under  provisions  for  precedence  of  measures  in  order  of  filing 
the  legislature  or  special  interests  might  so  load  the  ballot  as 
largely  or  completely  to  destroy  the  practical  value  of  the  sys- 
tem of  direct  legislation.4  Precedence  in  accordance  with  the 
excess  number  of  signatures  would  of  course  be  absurd. 

The  reappearance  of  especially  the  woman's  suffrage  amend- 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  5,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  2.  2  Pp.  54-8. 

1 H.  Heaton,  Oregon  Journal,  May  26,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  6;  C.  H.  Carey,  New  Re- 
sponsibilities of  Citizenship,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp. 
18,  32-3.  C.  H.  Chapman  and  others,  Introductory  Letter,  1909,  p.  13 ;  S.  A.  Lowell, 
Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  19,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

*  Cf.  Oregonian,  Jan.  7,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2 ;  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  8,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i. 


The  Multiplicity  of  Measures  85 

ment  and  the  "single-tax"  propositions  at  succeeding  elections 
has  been  the  cause  of  a  plan  to  prohibit  the  resubmission  of  pro- 
posals once  defeated  at  an  election  for  a  given  period  —  six  years, 
eight  years,  ten  years.1  The  prohibition  of  the  resubmission  of 
the  same  measure  would  of  course  easily  be  defeated  by  redrafting 
the  measure.2  But  it  has  also  been  suggested  that  the  sub- 
stance of  the  defeated  measure  shall  not  be  incorporated  into 
another  during  the  specified  period.3  But  of  course  any  such 
limitation  would  be  an  unbearable  obstacle  to  the  expression  of 
change  in  public  opinion.4 

A  requirement  that  initiative  measures  should  first  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  legislative  assembly8  might,  through  the  acceptance 
of  the  measures  by  the  assembly,  decrease  to  some  extent  the 
number  of  measures  submitted  to  the  people.  Further,  some 
reduction  of  the  present  amount  of  constitutional  restriction 
upon  action  by  the  assembly,  practicable  on  account  of  the  al- 
ternative check  now  supplied  by  the  referendum,6  would  tend  to 
the  same  result. 

"  The  only  apparent  relief  for  the  present  portentous  situation, 
and  the  only  way  out  of  a  serious  dilemma,  which  everyone 
recognizes  and  all  are  anxious  to  avoid,  is  to  vote  down  all  mis- 
cellaneous legislation  for  which  there  is  not  an  ascertainable 
demand  from  the  people  and  for  which  there  is  a  method  open 
besides  the  initiative  and  referendum."  7 

1  House  Joint  Resolution,  igog,  no.  4 ;  Senate  Bill,  igi3,  no.  32 ;   debate  in  house 
of  representatives,  Oregonian,  Feb.  16,  igog,  p.  7,  col.  3 ;  debate  in  senate,  Oregon 
Journal,  Jan.  22,  igi3,  p.  5,  col.  5 ;  C.  H.  Carey,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  20,  igi3,  p.  16, 
col.  2 ;  Oregonian,  Jan.  12,  igi3,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  3. 

2  Debate  in  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  22,  igi3,  p.  5,  col.  5;    East  Oregonian, 
quoted  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  12,  igi3,  p.  6,  col.  3. 

3  House  Joint  Resolution,  igog,  no.  4 ;  Oregonian,  Jan.  12,  igi3,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  3. 
"Any  measure  rejected  by  the  people,  through  the  provisions  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum,  cannot  be  again  proposed  by  the  initiative  within  three  years  thereafter 
by  less  than  twenty-five  per  centum  of  the  legal  voters."    Oklahoma  Constitution, 
art.  5,  sec.  6  (igoy).      "The  same  measure,  either  in  form  or  in  essential  substance, 
shall  not  be  submitted  to  the  people  by  initiative  petition  (either  affirmatively  or 
negatively)  oftener  than  once  in  three  years."    Nebraska  Constitution,  art.  3,  sec.  10 
(igi2).  *  Cf.  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  17,  igi3,  p.  8,  col.  2.     6  Below,  pp.  164-5. 

•  Below,  pp.  171-2.  7  Oregonian,  Aug.  8,  sec.  1912,  sec.  3,  p.  4,  col.  I. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CAMPAIGN  ORGANIZATION 

THE  campaign  in  favor  of  initiative  and  referendum  move- 
ments naturally  comes  for  the  most  part  from  the  parties  — 
associations  or  individuals  (usually  backed  by  associations  *)  — 
who  originated  the  respective  movements.  But  aid  in  their 
campaign  comes  from  other  associations  or  individuals  interested. 
In  some  cases,  support,  including  substantial  financial  contri- 
butions, has  come  from  "foreign"  sources.  This  is  notably 
true  in  the  case  of  the  "people's  power"  measures,  and  the 
"single-tax"  measures.2 

The  opposition  of  movements  to  initiate  or  refer  measures  is, 
in  general,  not  nearly  as  well  organized  as  the  promotion,  and 
in  some  cases  there  is  no  organized  opposition  at  all.  At  every 
election  there  is  apprehension  that  some  measures  will  pass  "by 
default,"  and  this  may  have  actually  occurred  at  times.  Organ- 
ized opposition  is  on  the  same  general  lines  as  that  of  the  promo- 
tion of  movements.  Permanent  associations  —  the  People's 
Power  League,  the  State  Grange,  the  State  Federation  of  Labor, 
business  organizations,  commercial  clubs,  alumni  associations, 
etc.,  have  led  active  campaigns  of  opposition.  The  Oregon  State 
Association  Opposed  to  the  Extension  of  Suffrage  to  Women  was 
organized  permanently  to  combat  the  woman's  suffrage  move- 
ment. Temporary  organizations,  like  the  People's  Higher  Edu- 
cation League,  for  the  university  interests,  and  the  Greater  Home 
Rule  Association,  in  opposition  to  the  prohibition  movement, 
are  sometimes  formed.  Occasionally  a  few  individuals,  or  a  lone 
individual,  presents  opposition  arguments  in  the  voters'  pamphlet. 

1  Above,  pp.  16-18.  *  Below,  pp.  89-90. 

86 


CHAPTER  IX 

FINANCE 

THE  cost  of  promoting  initiative  and  referendum  measures 
includes  legal  services  in  drafting  measures,  printing  measures, 
the  making,  verification,  and  filing  of  petitions,  the  publication 
of  arguments  in  the  voters'  pamphlet,  expenses  for  letters,  cir- 
culars, office  management,  speakers,  etc.  It  is  the  same  for  oppo- 
sition except  that  there  is  no  cost  for  petitions.  The  items,  of 
course,  vary  with  the  different  measures  and  the  different 
promoters. 

It  is  often  impossible  to  obtain  accurate  information  in 
regard  to  expenditures  in  the  promotion  or  opposition  of 
measures.  The  corrupt  practices  act  of  1908  requires  that 
persons  spending  more  than  fifty  dollars  to  aid  in  the  ap- 
proval or  defeat  of  a  measure  before  the  people  shall,  after 
the  election,  file  with  the  secretary  of  state  an  itemized  state- 
ment of  receipts  and  expenditures  for  every  sum  paid  in  excess 
of  five  dollars.1  But,  although  there  has  recently  been  im- 
provement in  complying  with  the  law,  in  many  cases  no  state- 
ments whatever  have  been  filed,  and  in  other  cases  statements 
are  not  at  all  reliable.2 

However,  from  official  and  other  sources,  it  appears  that  ex- 
penditures generally  vary  from  a  few  hundred  dollars  to  many 
thousands  of  dollars.  The  direct  primary  law  of  1904  cost  its 

1  Laws,  1909,  ch.  3,  sec.  12;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3497. 

*  As  an  aid  in  securing  complete  returns,  it  has  been  suggested  that  persons  pro- 
posing to  spend  money  on  measures  before  the  voters  should  be  required  to  file 
a  statement  of  such  intention  before  the  election,  just  as  candidates  for  office  are 
required  to  file  a  declaration  of  intention.  Reported  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  4,  1912,  p. 
18,  col.  3.  See  House  BiU,  1913,  no.  365 ;  above,  pp.  15-16. 

87 


88     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

promoters  $1710.52. x  The  State  Federation  of  Labor  and  the 
Portland  Labor  Council  spent  together  $1070.33  on  the 
employers'  liability  bill  of  1910.  The  woman  suffrage  amend- 
ment of  1912  cost  its  friends  and  opponents  together  $15,775.85. 
The  heaviest  expenditures  have  been  incurred  in  promoting  and 
opposing  "prohibition"  and  the  "single  tax." 

In  regard  to  such  expenditures,  one  of  much  experience  in 
this  connection  writes  thus :  "If  petitions  are  secured  by  volun- 
tary solicitors  the  cost  is  not  much,  if  any,  below  that  of  paid 
solicitors.  The  clerical  work,  postage,  etc.,  is  greater  in  cost  and 
if  traveling  expense,  to  secure  by  personal  solicitation  and  lec- 
tures these  voluntary  circulators,  is  necessary  —  as  it  usually  is 
—  the  expenses  may  be  very  great.  It  does  not  take  much  in 
the  printing  line  to  run  up  a  $100  printing  bill,  and  $50  postage 
will  not  cover  very  much  correspondence  and  mailing  of  circu- 
lars. By  starting  in  early  an  initiative  petition  may  be  se- 
cured through  paid  circulators  for  about  $350  to  $500  plus  some 
printing,  and  legal  services  in  drawing  up  the  bill.  But  it  is 
more  likely  to  total  $700  to  $1000  if  all  services  are  paid  for.  .  .  . 
A  great  many  people  never  stop  to  think  that  to  stamp,  mail, 
and  print  a  circular  and  enclose  it  with  a  personal  letter  takes 
about  5  cents  each,  or  more  if  allowance  is  made  for  clerical  work. 
Blank  petitions  cost  for  postage  alone  by  the  time  they  are  re- 
turned filled  with  names  over  10  cents  each,  and  many  more 
must  be  printed  than  sufficient  to  just  cover  the  legal  number  of 
names  required  by  law.  Meetings  and  traveling  expenses  eat 

»  Postage $  284.35 

Legal  services       111.20 

Telephone  and  telegraph 45-76 

Traveling  expenses 31-65 

Printing       358.25 

Envelopes 57-oo 

Canvassers       483-36 

Folders  from  Michigan  League 8.05 

Mailing  folders  and  circulars,  etc 106.75 

Office  and  miscellaneous 35-i5 

Total $1710.52 

Oregonian,  July  9,  1904,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


Finance  89 

up  money  very  rapidly  if  indulged  in.  The  sacrifice  of  time 
made  by  volunteers  is  very  great  and  cannot  be  estimated."  1 

In  addition  to  the  expenditures  incurred  by  the  promoters 
and  opponents  of  measures,  there  are  large  expenditures  in- 
curred by  the  state  under  the  system  of  direct  legislation.  In 
1914  the  cost  of  the  voters'  pamphlet2  alone  to  the  state  was 
$12,873.40  —  a  considerable  reduction  from  previous  expendi- 
ture. Moreover,  direct  legislation  has  materially  increased  the 
size  of  the  ballot  and  the  labor  of  canvassing  the  election  returns, 
and  has  thus  added  materially  to  the  cost  of  elections. 

"It  is  believed  in  official  circles  that,  once  the  law  is  put  to  the 
test  and  the  people  have  an  opportunity  to  realize  the  enormous 
expense  attached,  it  will  be  no  easy  matter  to  invoke  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum  upon  any  measures  except  those  of  extraor- 
dinary importance  or  which  are  construed  to  be  vicious  or  det- 
rimental to  the  interests  of  the  commonwealth." 3  But,  in  fact, 
such  considerations  have  so  far  apparently  had  very  little  effect. 

The  parties  directly  concerned  with  the  measures  advance 
funds  for  the  campaign,  and  subscriptions  are  solicited  from  all 
kinds  of  sources.  Public-welfare  organizations  tax  themselves 
for  various  causes.  The  Fels  Fund  Commission,  a  "foreign" 
organization,  has  contributed  many  thousands  of  dollars  to  the 
campaign  for  progressive  and  radical  movements,  with  special 
interest  in  the  "single-tax"  propositions.  This  has  aroused 
bitter  opposition  in  some  directions,  and  a  cry  for  "home  rule  in 
Oregon  "  has  been  raised.  "  There  is  in  Oregon  a  coterie  of  paid 
employes  of  an  eastern  organization.  The  object  and  purpose  of 
that  organization  is  to  impose  somewhere  in  the  United  States 
untried  experiments  in  government  and  untested  theories  in 
economics.  Oregon  with  its  wide  open  initiative  is  a  fertile  field 
for  its  operations.  Therefore,  it  has  dumped  its  wealth  into 
Oregon.  It  has  provided  its  employes  with  a  war  chest,  collected 
in  this  and  foreign  countries,  with  which  to  pay  for  literature, 

1  A.  D.  Cridge,  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  20,  1914,  p.  6,  col.  4. 

*  Below,  pp.  93-4.  *0regonian,  Apr.  15,  1907,  p.  5,  col.  i. 


90     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

speakers,  and  petition  shovers.  It  has  compelled  property 
owners  of  Oregon  to  contribute  to  a  fund  to  defend  against  in- 
vasion of  their  property  rights."  l  " There  is  need  of  a  law  which 
will  prevent  foreign  organizations  and  residents  of  other  states 
from  employing  attorneys  or  lawgivers  to  draft  initiative  meas- 
ures, paying  the  stipends  of  petition  hawkers,  hiring  press 
agents,  spending  vast  sums  for  literature  in  behalf  of  their  own 
and  against  other  specific  measures  and  in  contributing  to  the 
success  or  defeat  of  state  or  local  candidates  for  office.  Efforts 
in  behalf  of  economic  theories  or  principles  when  directed  from 
without  should  cease  at  a  certain  point  and  that  point  should  be 
when  a  measure  or  the  representative  of  a  political  policy  is 
before  the  people  and  there  through  the  effort  of  Oregon  citizens. 
There  is  no  better  reason  for  permitting  organizations  or  per- 
sons that  have  no  citizenship  interests  in  Oregon  to  force  con- 
sideration of  measures  or  aid  in  the  election  or  defeat  of  measures 
or  candidates  than  there  is  for  permitting  them  to  sign  the 
petitions  or  participate  in  the  balloting."  2 

This  view  was  the  cause  of  an  attempt  made  in  the  legislative 
assembly  of  1913  to  enact  a  law  making  it  a  crime  to  receive  any 
money  from  without  the  state  for  assistance  in  the  adoption  or 
defeat  of  any  measure  submitted  by  the  initiative.3 

Under  the  corrupt  practices  act 4  the  amount  of  money  to  be 
spent  by  candidates  for  office  is  limited,  but  no  limitations  are 
placed  upon  the  expenditure  for  initiative  or  referendum 
measures.  In  order  "  to  put  the  poor  man  on  an  equality  with 
the  rich  man"  in  this  regard,  it  was  claimed,5  an  attempt  was 
made  in  the  legislative  assembly  of  1913  to  place  strict  limitation 
upon  the  amount  of  expenditure  in  case  of  any  initiative  meas- 
ure,8 but  the  proposition  was  not  accepted. 

1  Oregonian,  July  5,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i.  *  Ibid.,  Dec.  5,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

1  Senate  Bill,  1913,  no.  125.  There  was  no  intention  of  limiting  contributions  to 
campaigns  prior  to  the  actual  filing  of  measures.  Cf.  Oregonian,  Jan.  26,  1913,  sec. 
3,  p.  6,  col.  3.  4  Laws,  1909,  ch.  3,  sec.  8;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3494. 

*E.  E.  Blanchard,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  17,  1913,  p.  20,  col.  2. 

•  House  Bill,  1913,  no.  103. 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  EDUCATION  OF  THE  VOTE 

i 
The  Study  of  Measures 

THE  grave  responsibility  which  the  people  have  imposed 
upon  themselves  by  the  adoption  of  the  system  of  direct  legis- 
lation is  continually  emphasized  by  the  press  and  on  the  plat- 
form. "The  people  of  Oregon  are  to  determine  for  themselves 
great  problems  deeply  concerning  their  welfare.  A  single  mis- 
take will  be  serious;  several  mistakes  will  be  unfortunate;  a 
series  of  mistakes  —  and  there  is  opportunity  for  them  —  will 
be  disastrous.  It  behooves  the  voter  to  begin  now  the  most 
careful  and  thorough  consideration  of  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum measures,  that  his  action  in  November  may  be  informed, 
deliberate,  judicious  and  safe."  1  "He  must  first  learn  the  fact 
that  he  is  one  of  a  large  legislative  body  empowered  to  enact 
laws  and  amend  the  constitution,  then  to  be  as  painstaking  and 
as  honest  as  he  expects  and  demands  a  member  of  the  state  legis- 
lature should  be."  2  But  with  the  steadily  increasing  burden 
of  the  ballot  the  proper  consideration  by  the  great  mass  of  the 
voters  of  all  the  measures  submitted,  many  of  them  extremely 
complex,  has  become  an  absolute  impossibility,3  and  thus  any 
serious  study  of  the  measures  is  more  or  less  discouraged.  Al- 
though probably  great  numbers  of  voters  give  all  the  considera- 
tion to  the  questions  before  them  which  could  be  reasonably 

1  Oregonian,  May  n,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

*  Woodburn  Independent,  reprinted  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  25,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  5. 

*  Above,  pp.  78-82. 

91 


92     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

expected,  it  is  certain  that  very  many  others  give  little  or  no 
attention  to  them.  Some  voters  shift  the  responsibility  of  deci- 
sion upon  others  whose  opinions  or  whose  standing  they  respect.1 
Others  must  vote  wholly  or  partly  at  random. 

That  any  trouble  at  all  on  the  part  of  the  voters  to  inform 
themselves  upon  the  issues  of  the  election  is  necessary  has 
even  been  denied  upon  the  ground  that  the  manner  in  which  one 
decides  the  question  as  to  how  he  should  vote  upon  a  measure 
depends  wholly  upon  his  temperament  and  not  at  all  "  upon  the 
degree  of  his  intelligence  or  of  his  information  relating  to  it,"  as 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  most  intelligent  and  best  informed 
persons  may  be  found  on  opposite  sides  of  the  same  question.2 
There  is  another  heretical  doctrine  to  the  effect  that  the  proper 
consideration  of  all  the  measures  by  the  voters  presents  no 
serious  difficulty.  "Each  is  printed  in  full  three  months  before 
election  in  the  state  pamphlet,  and  is  either  self-explanatory,  or 
is  accompanied  by  arguments  pro  and  con.  In  addition,  the 
advocates  and  opponents  of  the  measures  indulge  in  state-wide 
campaigns  in  the  press  and  on  the  stump.  It  doesn't  take  very 
much  time  or  very  much  brains  to  go  over  the  measures  and  ar- 
rive at  a  decision."  3  At  any  rate,  it  is  maintained,  the  diffi- 
culties here  are  at  least  less  than  in  the  intelligent  choice  of 
public  officers.4 

1  "In  all  our  work  we  have  found  the  great  value  of  well-known  names  attached 
to  our  measures  as  officers  or  members  of  committees.  Though  not  all  of  our  friends 
were  able  to  give  much  time,  their  names  worked  for  them.  You  see,  the  average 
voter  is  too  indolent,  too  busy,  or  too  distrustful  of  his  own  judgment  to  study  or 
decide  for  himself  upon  the  details  of  a  law  on  a  great  public  question.  People  always 
ask  of  a  proposition  to  enact  a  principle  they  approve,  'Who  is  back  of  it?'  If  they 
find  it  endorsed  by  men  whose  reputation  would  forbid  them  to  allow  the  use  of  their 
names  with  any  unpractical,  improper,  or  sinister  law  to  apply  the  principle,  they 
promptly  conclude  that  it  is  right  and  worthy  of  support."  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted 
by  L.  Pease,  Initiative  and  Referendum  —  Oregon's  "Big  Stick,"  Pacific  Monthly, 
vol.  17,  pp.  563,  574-5  (1007).  See  below,  pp.  g8-g. 

2T.  T.  Greer,  Oregonian,  Jan.  6,  1914,  p.  6,  col.  6. 

*  Medford  Mail  Tribune,  reprinted  in  Eugene  Guard,  Oct.  15,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  5. 

4  "As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  much  easier  and  requires  much  less  knowledge  and 
acumen  to  determine  whether  a  proposed  measure  is  what  one  wants  to  vote  for 


The  Education  of  the  Vote  93 


The  Means  of  Information 

At  first  the  state  did  not  undertake,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
voters,  the  publication  of  information  on  the  measures  sub- 
mitted, but  provision  was  made  for  distribution  to  the  voters, 
through  the  secretary  of  state  and  the  county  clerks,  at  public 
expense,  of  pamphlet  arguments  offered  by  parties  interested 
in  measures  and  of  copies  of  the  measures  to  the  voters.1 

The  law  of  1907  provides  for  an  official  state  publication 
generally  known  as  "the  voters'  pamphlet."  Not  later  than  the 
ninetieth  day  before  a  general  election  and  not  later  than 
thirty  days  before  a  special  election  at  which  any  measures  are 
to  be  submitted  to  the  voters,  the  secretary  of  state  is  required  to 
send  to  each  registered  voter  a  copy  of  the  pamphlet,  printed 
under  his  direction,  containing  the  title  and  text  of  each  measure, 
with  the  number  and  form  in  which  the  ballot  title  will  be 
printed  and  the  arguments  which  may  have  been  filed  regarding 
the  measures.  Only  the  person  filing  an  initiative  petition  is 
allowed  space  in  the  pamphlet  for  arguments  favoring  the  meas- 
ure, but  any  one  may  insert  arguments  opposing  it,  and  any  one 
may  insert  arguments  either  for  or  against  any  referendum 
measure.  The  cost  of  paper  and  printing  for  the  arguments 
—  for  the  election  of  1914  thirty-four  dollars  and  thirteen 
cents  for  each  page  of  the  pamphlet  —  is  borne  by  the  persons 
presenting  the  arguments.2 

than  to  make  an  equally  well  advised  decision  about  a  candidate.  It  is  easier  to  tell 
whether  the  general  purpose  and  intent  of  a  measure  is  acceptable  or  not,  and  a 
month  or  two  of  hostile  criticism  —  the  only  true  test  —  is  pretty  likely  to  disclose 
any  serious  defects  in  detail.  On  the  other  hand,  the  public  is  notoriously  subject 
to  be  deceived  as  to  the  genuineness  of  a  man's  professions.  What  a  man  really 
represents  is  known  only  to  him  and  his  Maker,  and  his  future  conduct  in  detail 
under  new  and  untried  conditions  is  past  finding  out."  R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon 
System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3,  pp.  256,  267  (1914). 

1  Laws,  1903,  p.  244,  sec.  8. 

8  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  8;  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  4.  It  has  been  proposed 
that  two  pages  for  affirmative  and  two  for  negative  arguments  should  be  provided  at 


94     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

There  is  at  present  no  limitation  upon  the  amount  of  space  in 
the  pamphlet  given  to  arguments  other  than  this  expense  to  the 
persons  presenting  them.  With  the  steady  increase  of  the  num- 
ber of  measures  submitted  the  size  of  the  pamphlet  has  increased, 
until  at  the  election  of  1912  it  contained  two  hundred  and  fifty- 
two  pages.  The  reduction  of  the  size  of  the  pamphlet  of  1914  to 
one  hundred  and  ten  pages  was  due  largely  to  the  disposal  of  the 
statutes  of  the  assembly  of  1913  referred  by  petition  at  the  spe- 
cial election  held  for  the  purpose  that  year,  and  some  condensation 
of  form  and  the  use  of  smaller  type.  It  may  possibly  become 
necessary  to  limit  the  amount  of  matter  of  arguments  for  any 
one  person  or  any  one  measure.1  So  far  the  pamphlet  has  con- 
tained affirmative  arguments  for  nearly  two-thirds  of  the 
measures  submitted,  and  negative  arguments  for  only  a  little 
over  two-fifths  of  the  measures.2  It  is  seldom  that  more  than 
one  argument  on  a  side  is  filed.  At  the  session  of  the  legislative 
assembly  in  1913,  it  was  proposed  to  make  the  attorney  general 
a  sort  of  advocatus  diaboli  against  measures  lacking  negative 
arguments.3 

The  pamphlet  arguments  vary  in  length,  but  most  of  them  are 
short  and  to  the  point.  They  have  great  variety  of  merit.  The 
arguments  are  partisan  statements,  and  could  not  reasonably 
be  expected  to  be  otherwise.  However,  some  downright  mis- 
statements  of  fact  in  the  pamphlets  constitute  an  abuse  which 
it  seems  impossible  to  correct.4 

the  expense  of  the  state.  House  BUI,  1913,  no.  365.  It  is  customary  for  the  secre- 
tary of  state  to  furnish  proofs  of  affirmative  arguments  upon  request  of  parties 
desiring  them,  and  he  will  furnish  certified  copies  of  the  arguments,  as  public  records 
at  the  legal  rate;  but  there  is  no  express  provision  of  law  relating  to  the  matter. 
Cf.  Orcgonian,  July  15,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  2 ;  July  18,  1912,  p.  2,  col.  4. 

1  Cf.  G.  H.  Haynes,  Education  of  Voters,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  vol.  22,  pp.  484, 
495-7  (1907). 

1  In  some  cases  arguments  have  been  filed  too  late  for  publication,  under  terms  of 
the  law. 

1  "If  no  argument  shall  be  offered  against  a  measure,  the  attorney  general  shall 
prepare  a  statement  of  not  more  than  two  pages  setting  forth  the  reasons  why  said 
measure  should  be  rejected  by  the  people."  House  Bill,  1913,  no.  365,  sec.  7. 

'Official  censorship  has  been  suggested.    Eugene  Register,  Nov.  15,  1912,  p.  4, 


The  Education  of  the  Vote  95 

The  pamphlet  is  the  only  means  available  to  the  great  majority 
of  voters  for  getting  a  first-hand  knowledge  of  the  measure 
submitted,  and  is  the  only  source  of  information  on  the  measures 
which  may  be  expected  to  reach  all  the  voters,  or  rather  all  the 
registered  voters  of  the  state.1 

The  extent  to  which  the  voters  in  general  make  use  of  the 
pamphlet  is  very  uncertain.  The  size  of  the  document  as  well  as 
other  difficulties  certainly  discourage  many  voters  and  keep 
them  from  reading  it  at  all.  Probably  not  one  person  in  hun- 
dreds reads  the  whole  of  the  pamphlet  or  any  considerable  part 
of  it  even  in  a  cursory  manner,  much  less  makes  a  thorough 
study  of  much  of  its  contents.  But  the  pamphlet  is  used  a  great 
deal  for  reference  to  supplement  other  sources  of  information, 
and  has  probably  had  most  of  its  usefulness  in  this  direction. 
Moreover,  the  arguments  in  the  pamphlet  are  published  in  con- 
densed form  by  newspapers,  and  thus  reach  many  voters. 

The  only  other  official  sources  of  information  on  measures  are 
the  "sample  ballots"  and  the  ballots  voted  at  the  election. 
Probably  very  many  voters  read  nothing  else  in  regard  to  the 
measures  except  the  ballot  title.2  Voters  have  been  known  in 
some  cases  —  probably  very  few  —  to  spend  from  one  to  two 
hours  in  the  voting  booths.  And,  although  the  mere  identifica- 
tion of  the  numerous  measures,  under  the  method  of  writing  ballot 
titles  employed  until  recently,  has,  in  the  absence  of  proper  de- 
col,  i.  Penalty  and  forfeiture  of  bonds  is  another  suggestion.  Klamath  Falls 
Northwestern,  reprinted  in  Eugene  Register,  Nov.  28,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

"If  in  the  opinion  of  the  secretary  of  state  any  argument  for  or  against  any 
measure  offered  for  filing  contains  any  obscene,  vulgar,  profane,  scandalous,  libelous, 
defamatory  or  treasonable  matter  or  any  language  tending  to  provoke  crime  or  a 
breach  of  the  peace,  or  any  language  or  matter  the  circulation  of  which  is  prohibited 
by  any  act  of  congress,  the  secretary  of  state  shall  refuse  to  file  such  argument: 
Provided.  That  the  person  submitting  such  argument  for  filing  may  appeal  to  a  board 
of  censors  consisting  of  the  governor,  the  attorney  general  and  the  superintendent 
of  public  instruction,  and  the  decision  of  a  majority  of  such  board  shall  be  final." 
Washington  Laws,  1913,  ch.  138,  sec.  26. 

1  It  has  been  proposed  to  eliminate  all  those  voters  who  have  not  registered  from 
voting  on  measures,  "of  which  they  can  have  but  scanty  information."  Reported  in 
Oregonian,  Oct.  19,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  2.  *B4ow,  pp.  108-9. 


96     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

vices  used  by  the  voter,  required  a  great  deal  of  time,  it  is  prob- 
able that  in  these  cases  the  voter  has  spent  most  of  his  time 
"studying"  the  measures  as  described  by  their  titles.1 

By  far  the  most  influential  source  of  information  for  the  voters 
is  the  public  press.  Some  of  the  newspapers  published  at  Port- 
land have  an  especially  great  influence,  but  the  local  press  as 
well  plays  a  great  part  in  determining  the  results  of  the  election. 
Even  the  state  papers  disclaim, any  attempt  thoroughly  to  dis- 
cuss all  of  the  measures  submitted,  and  many  measures  receive 
but  little  attention  from  the  press.  But  questions  of  large  policy 
in  which  the  public  is  most  deeply  interested  are  discussed  at 
length  in  probably  all  the  papers.  At  times  papers  expressly 
decline  to  give  any  opinion  whatever  on  subjects  which  they  con- 
sider unsuited  for  decision  by  the  people.2 

The  discussion  of  the  questions  by  the  press  begins  with  the 
circulation  of  the  petitions,  and  ends  only  with  the  election. 
Editorials,  some  of  great  length,  and  briefer  comments  upon 
measures  are  abundant.  Cartoons  relating  to  measures  appear 
frequently.  Just  before  the  election  it  is  customary  for  both 
state  and  local  papers  to  give  a  column  or  so  to  a  very  brief  state- 
ment of  the  nature  of  each  measure,  in  ballot  order,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  recommend  approval  or  rejection.  A  still  briefer 
"vest-pocket"  edition  also  sometimes  appears.3  There  is  un- 
doubtedly a  great  deal  of  reliance  upon  the  press  by  the  voters. 
Many  of  them  clip  out  the  brief  lists  of  recommendations,  and 

1  Above,  pp.  51-3. 

1  "As  a  matter  of  duty  to  its  readers,  The  Oregonian,  prior  to  every  election  in 
which  measures  are  to  be  submitted,  details  members  of  its  staff  to  study  the  legisla- 
tive issues.  Not  only  is  information  obtained  from  public  records,  but  frequently 
competent  legal  opinion  is  sought  as  to  the  effect  of  proposed  laws  or  amendments." 
Oregonian,  Dec.  8, 1913,  p.  6,  col.  2.  But  the  editor,  as  well  as  the  average  voter,  has 
difficulties.  "The  editor  has  been  again  wading  through  the  Oregon  political  pam- 
phlet in  an  attempt  to  form  an  intelligent  judgment  on  the  thirty-eight  proposed 
.  .  .  bills.  He  finds  it  absolutely  impossible  to  do  so.  It  is  our  shame  that  not 
one  per  cent  of  the  voters  at  the  polls  in  Oregon  in  November  will  be  able  to  cast  an 
intelligent  ballot."  Ashland  Tidings,  reprinted  in  Oregonian,  Oct.  3,  1912,  p.  10, 
coL  2.  » Below,  pp.  275-9. 


The  Education  of  the  Vote 


97 


take  them  to  the  polls.  Some  make  no  secret  of  the  fact  that 
they  vote  the  list  exactly  as  recommended.  In  addition  to  the 
discussions  which  authoritatively  express  the  policy  of  the  news- 
papers, the  papers  contain  a  great  deal  of  discussion  upon 
measures  in  the  form  of  letters  to  the  editor,  special  articles, 
and  debates.  Some  measures  are  thus  discussed  in  the  papers 
from  almost  every  conceivable  point  of  view. 

For  years  the  state  library  has  collected  information  upon 
measures  submitted,  and  this  information  has  been  made  avail- 
able to  both  individuals  and  associations. 

It  has  been  proposed  that  some  sort  of  an  official  advisory  com- 
mission should  be  established  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  study 
the  measures  submitted  and  make  recommendations  upon  them 
for  distribution  to  the  voters.1 

Associations  of  all  descriptions  have  an  important  part  in  the 
education  of  the  vote  in  direct  legislation.  Permanently  or- 
ganized bodies,  like  the  bar  associations,  granges,  labor  unions, 
commercial  clubs,  good-government  clubs,  literary  associations, 
church  organizations,  etc.,  etc.,  study  and  discuss  the  measures, 
and  sometimes  publish  recommendations  to  the  voters.2  A  huge 
mass  of  "  resolutions  "  on  the  merits  of  questions  come  from  in- 
numerable associations.  In  probably  most  of  these  cases,  how- 
ever, the  "resolution"  has  been  written  by  outside  parties  inter- 
ested in  the  particular  measure,  and  the  passing  of  the  resolution 
is  probably  generally  a  mere  perfunctory  act.  Temporary 
organizations  are  sometimes  formed  for  the  special  purpose  of 
preparing  for  the  election.  Neighborhood  gatherings  for  the 
discussion  of  measures  are  customary,  both  in  town  and  country, 
and  "  mass  meetings  "  are  held  for  the  same  purpose. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  discussion  of  questions  before  the  voters 
in  ordinary  conversation.  The  persons  particularly  interested 
in  the  measures  proposed  carry  on  a  campaign  of  education 
by  means  of  pamphlets,  circular  letters,  individual  letters,  hand 

1 D.  J.  Beasly,  Oregonian,  Feb.  2,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  5.    Above,  p.  30. 
1  Below,  pp.  266-74,  280-8. 
H 


98      Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

bills,  advertisements  in  the  newspapers,  etc.1  Written  argu- 
ment is  supplemented  to  a  considerable  extent  by  public  ad- 
dresses and  debates  and  addresses  before  all  sorts  of  organiza- 
tions. There  has  been  some  house  to  house  canvassing  in  behalf 
of  certain  measures. 

These  various  influences  have  been  estimated  to  be  of  such  im- 
portance as  to  have  developed  a  system  of  "representative 
government"  in  direct  legislation.  "The  truth  is  that  the 
initiative  and  referendum  have  developed  in  Oregon  into  a  rep- 
resentative system  of  lawmaking.  Probably  fewer  than  one- 
tenth  of  the  voters  make  a  systematic  study  of  proposed  legis- 
lation. The  hard  work  in  that  respect  is  done  by  the  committees 
of  the  Grange  and  other  farmers'  organizations,  by  labor  federa- 
tion committees,  by  leaders  in  tax  organizations  and  other 
leagues.  The  ordinary  voter  pins  his  faith  to  the  judgment  of 
some  society,  of  which  there  are  many,  when  it  comes  to  matters 
of  ordinary  legislation.  The  press  performs  an  important  func- 
tion. Each  newspaper  gives  its  advice  and  each  has  a  large 
clientele  that  accepts  its  decisions.  On  questions  like  prohibi- 
tion, capital  punishment  or  woman's  suffrage  the  voter  thinks 
for  himself,  but  on  the  piffling  laws  with  which  theorists,  schemers 
and  some  honest  but  misguided  enthusiasts  burden  the  ballot 
somebody  else  does  the  voters'  thinking  for  them.  Oregon  has 
two  legislatures  of  a  representative  type.  One  is  the  duly  elected, 
responsible  assembly  that  meets  for  forty  days  in  each  biennium. 
The  other  is  a  non-elective  volunteer  body  of  public  advisers 
each  integral  part  of  which  works  independently  and  has  a  con- 
stituency of  uncertain  and  varying  proportions.  The  chief 

1  The  corrupt  practices  act  requires  that  all  paid  advertisements  in  newspapers 
shall  be  marked  as  such,  and  that  all  circulars,  etc.,  shall  bear  the  names  of  author  and 
printer.  Laws,  1909,  ch.  3,  sees.  33,  35;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sees.  3517,  3519. 

"The  management  of  the  recent  ("graduated-single-tax"]  campaign  has  unques- 
tionably overestimated  the  value  of  indiscriminate  distribution  of  literature.  Ex- 
perience has  taught  us  that  literature  is  of  little  or  no  value  unless  preceded  by  some 
kind  of  a  personal  overture.  Thousands  of  dollars  have  been  literally  thrown  away 
in  the  distribution  of  reading  matter  that  was  never  taken  out  of  its  wrapper." 
Letter  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  8,  1912,  sec.  2,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


The  Education  of  the  Vote  99 

difference  in  their  operations  is  that  the  one  does  its  own  voting 
and  the  other  tells  the  people  how  to  vote.  The  present  and 
many  preceding  generations  in  America  have  grown  up  under  a 
representative  form  of  government.  It  is  a  difficult  thing  to 
abandon.  Oregon  has  not  done  so  except  on  fundamental  ques- 
tions. The  multitudinous  laws  and  amendments  on  the  Oregon 
ballot  which  give  uneasiness  elsewhere  where  direct  legislation  is 
in  prospect  are  in  fact  approved  or  rejected  by  a  roundabout 
representative  system.  A  great  many  in  Oregon  do  not  yet 
realize  this  fact,  but  they  will  in  time."  1 

The  legislative  assembly  of  course  has  greater  opportunities 
for  the  proper  consideration  of  legislation  than  the  voters  can 
generally  have,  but  these  opportunities  under  conditions  that 
have  prevailed  in  the  past  have  not,  unfortunately,  been  used 
to  their  full  extent,  and  hence  there  is  widespread  opinion  that 
the  advantage  is  rather  with  the  people.  "I  have  heard  more 
than  one  member  of  the  legislature  declare,  as  the  press  and 
tumult  of  the  session  began  to  distract  him,  that  he  believed 
the  initiative  method  with  its  prolonged  and  searching  discus- 
sions during  the  campaign  before  the  voters  was  a  better  way  to 
make  laws  than  he  was  attempting  to  practice." 2 


3 
The  Results  of  Education 

The  actual  amount  of  knowledge  of  the  issues  involved  which 
is  gained  by  the  voters  from  the  various  available  sources  of  in- 
formation is  of  course  problematical.  Some  views  of  the  matter 
are  very  pessimistic.  "After  all  the  discussions  of  the  initiative 
and  referendum  propositions  it  is  doubtful  whether  one  voter 
in  ten  has  distinct  ideas  about  most  of  them.  Legislation  after 

1  Oregonian,  May  6,  1914,  p.  10,  col.  3.    Cf.  above,  p.  92,  note  i. 

1 R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3,  pp. 
256,  266  (1914).  See  also  J.  Bourne,  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  122,  127  (1909). 


ioo     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in   Oregon 

this  manner  is  a  leap  in  the  dark. ' ' *  Other  views  are  more  cheer- 
ful. But  whatever  may  be  the  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
amount  of  knowledge  obtained  by  the  voters,  there  is  general 
agreement  in  the  view  that  the  educational  effect  of  the  cam- 
paign is  of  very  great  value.  "  It  takes  time  to  educate  a  people 
into  fitness  for  self-government.  We  are  not  completely  fit,  no 
doubt,  but  the  very  use  of  this  privilege  and  power  will  make 
the  people  more  fit,  constantly  and  even  rapidly."  2  "It  keeps 
the  average  citizen  in  touch  with  current  legislation.  It  brings 
home  to  the  average  citizen  the  duty  and  responsibility  of 
helping  make  laws.  It  awakens  every  citizen's  mind  to  a  reali- 
zation of  factorship  in  state  concerns.  Nobody  knows  how  much 
benefit  has  already  come  to  the  men  of  Oregon  by  the  reflection 
and  study  incident  to  initiative  law  making.  Nobody  knows 
how  many  average  minds  are  now  grappling  with  current  prob- 
lems who  never  did  so  in  the  old  days,  because  all  our  law  making 
and  all  our  public  thinking  was  done  for  us  by  proxy.  Nobody 
knows  the  full  extent  of  the  informative  influence  exercised  on 
tens  of  thousands  of  voters  by  perusal  and  study  of  the  meas- 
ures in  the  state  pamphlet  and  in  the  reflection  incident  to  de- 
termining whether  to  vote  for  or  against  the  various  measures."  3 

I0regonian,  June  i,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  4.  "Since  receiving  the  book  of  laws  to  be 
voted  upon  this  fall,  I  have  been  trying  to  post  myself  upon  the  miscellaneous  meas- 
ures therein  in  order  to  vote  intelligently  upon  the  same.  I  frankly  admit  that  I 
feel  incompetent  to  perform  the  duty  properly.  I  have  talked  to  others  —  some  who 
have  intelligence  above  the  average  —  and  they  have  admitted  their  incompetency 
also,  principally  because  it  is  out  of  their  line  of  business."  S.  V.  Rehart,  Ore- 
gonian,  Sept.  30,  1012,  p.  8,  col.  6.  *  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  29,  1908,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

3  Ibid.,  Aug.  30,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  i. 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  VOTE  IN  DIRECT  LEGISLATION 

i 
The  Interest  in  Elections 

"THAT  voting  in  an  election  is  a  patriotic  duty  that  no  man 
should  neglect  has  long  been  urged  upon  the  electorate.  But 
there  is  even  stronger  reason  why  the  people  should  vote  on  direct 
legislation.  Election  to  office  is  a  contest  between  two  or  more 
candidates.  The  voter  who  stays  away  from  the  polls  divides 
his  vote  equally  among  the  several  candidates.  Oregon  state 
and  county  elections  have  developed  largely  into  a  popularity 
test  between  personalities.  The  office  will  be  filled  and  the 
business  of  the  government  carried  on  in  spite  of  widespread 
dereliction  in  the  exercise  of  the  franchise.  An  initiative 
measure  or  one  subjected  to  the  referendum,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  an  issue  in  itself.  We  either  adopt  it  or  reject  it. 
We  either  accept  its  virtues  or  its  evils  or  we  deprive  our- 
selves wholly  of  them.  Failure  of  many  to  vote  leaves  the 
control  of  government  affairs,  in  sometimes  unsuspected  in- 
stances, to  a  compact  group  or  class  that  is  actually  in  the 
minority.  Indifference  of  the  majority,  or  its  failure  to  discern 
the  significance  of  a  proposed  law,  may  wreak  disaster  upon 
the  majority  or  give  the  minority  special  advantages  or  privi- 
leges to  which  it  is  not  entitled."  1 

But  that  the  voters  are  not  as  much  interested  in  the  enact- 
ment of  direct  legislation  as  they  are  in  the  choice  of  officers 
clearly  appears  from  the  fact  that  when  officers  and  measures 

1  Oregonian,  Sept.  10,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  i. 
101 


IO2     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

are  voted  upon  at  the  same  election  —  which  has  been  the  case 
at  every  election  under  the  new  system  except  the  special  elec- 
tion of  1913  —  on  the  average  only  seventy-three  per  cent  of  the 
total  vote  cast  at  the  election  is  received  by  a  measure,  in  contrast 
to  the  average  of  eighty-eight  per  cent  received  by  an  officer. 
Further,  at  the  special  election  of  1913,  when  no  officers  were 
elected,1  the  total  vote  cast  on  the  measures  was  only  seventy- 
one  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  cast  at  the  election  the  year 
before,  although  since  then  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  to 
women  had  increased  the  electorate  probably  over  forty  per 
cent.  "It  has  been  suggested  that  this,  at  worst,  results  only 
in  a  kind  of  natural  selection  of  the  intelligent  and  interested  — 
an  oligarchy  of  the  thoughtful,  which  some  believe  to  be  the 
goal  of  politics."2 

There  is  much  variation  of  interest  shown  in  the  particular 
measures  appearing  on  the  ballot.  The  greatest  variation  ap- 
pears in  the  election  of  1910,  when  the  highest  number  of  votes 
cast  on  a  measure  was  eighty-eight  per  cent  of  the  total  votes 
cast  at  the  election,  and  the  lowest  sixty-one  per  cent. 

The  chief  interest  of  the  voters,  so  far  as  this  is  indicated  by 
the  percentages  of  votes  cast  on  the  various  measures,  is  in  mat- 
ters of  general  state  policy  —  liquor  legislation,  woman's  suf- 
frage, the  "  single-tax,"  etc. ;  and  their  least  concern  is  generally 
with  matters  of  a  special  local  nature,  as  county  divisions,  with 
technical  questions,  as  the  details  of  tax  administration,  and  with 
complex  subjects,  as  the  reorganization  of  the  legislative  depart- 
ment. Progressive  and  even  radical  measures  at  times  receive 
low  percentages  of  the  votes  cast  when  the  measures  are  much 
involved,  and  this  has  happened  even  where  single  issues  have 
been  submitted  in  such  cases.3 

1  Except  local  officers  in  some  places. 

*  R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3, 
pp.  256,  268  (1914). 

•Why  the  constitutional  amendment  for  the  local  initiative  and  referendum 
received  the  least  number  of  votes  cast  on  measures  at  the  election  of  1006  does  not 
appear. 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  103 

Although  promoters  of  initiative  and  referendum  movements 
sometimes  are  anxious  that  their  measures  should  be  filed  in 

t 

time  to  get  "good  places"  on  the  ballot,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  place  on  the  ballot  has  anything  to  do  with  the  consider- 
ation of  a  measure  by  the  voters. 


2 

Minority  versus  Majority 

From  a  study  of  the  votes  for  the  measures  which  have  been  ap- 
proved at  the  several  elections,  it  appears  that  of  the  fifty-one 
measures  which  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  par- 
ticular measure,  only  nineteen,  or  a  little  under  two-fifths  of  these 
measures,  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  election. 
The  majority  is  generally  reduced  as  the  number  of  measures 
on  the  ballot  increases. 

For  years  there  has  been  complaint,  especially  in  regard  to  the 
initiative,  that  the  provision  which  permits  the  passage  of  meas- 
ures submitted  to  the  people  by  the  majority  of  the  votes  cast 
on  the  particular  measure  instead  of  the  majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast  at  the  election,  and  thus  puts  into  effect  legislation  approved 
by  only  a  minority  of  the  voters,  substitutes  minority  rule  for 
majority  rule  as  a  principle  of  government.1  Accordingly,  in 
1912,  proposals  for  constitutional  amendments  were  submitted 
to  the  people,  which  provided,  one  for  the  approval  of  all  con- 
stitutional amendments,  the  other  for  the  approval  of  all  initia- 
tive measures,  by  the  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  at  the  elec- 
tion.2 

1  E.g.,  Oregonian,  Feb.  18,  igo8,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  pp.  85-6. 

*  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  nos.  310,  322,  pp.  31,  83.  Earlier  proposals :  A.  T. 
Buxton,  Oregonian,  May  15,  1908,  p.  6,  col.  3 ;  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  22,  1008,  sec.  5, 
p.  6,  col.  2 ;  proposed  Grange  resolution,  Oregonian,  May  13,  1909,  p.  6,  col.  3 ; 
House  Joint  Resolution,  1911,  no.  n.  "Any  measure  referred  to  the  people  by  the 
initiative  shall  take  effect  and  be  in  force  when  it  shall  have  been  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  in  such  election.  Any  measure  referred  to  the  people  by 
the  referendum  shall  take  effect  and  be  in  force  when  it  shall  have  been  approved 


IO4     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

In  favor  of  the  amendments,  it  was  urged  that  under  the 
present  system  the  indifferent  voters  are  virtually  counted  in 
favor  of  the  measure ;  that  in  the  presence  of  any  real  popular 
demand  for  legislation  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  securing 
the  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  at  the  election ;  and  appeal 
was  made  to  the  precedent  established  in  case  of  the  legislative 
assembly,  where  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  all  members  of  each 
house  are  required  for  the  enactment  of  legislation.1 

But  the  proposals  were  fiercely  attacked  as  attempts  toward 
the  destruction  of  popular  government.2  Such  a  regulation,  it 
was  urged,  in  substance  makes  every  vote  not  cast  on  any  meas- 
ure a  vote  against  it,  and  allows  the  fate  of  that  measure  to  be 
decided  by  the  negligence  and  indifference  of  the  non-voters, 
instead  of  by  the  intelligent  vote  of  electors  who  have  taken  suf- 
ficient interest  in  the  measure  to  vote  upon  it.3  Moreover, 
"indifferent  voters  would  be  encouraged  to  be  more  indifferent. 
Realizing  that  no- vote  would  be  counted  as  a  vote  against  a  pend- 
ing bill,  the  indifferent  voter  would  take  no  trouble  to  exam- 
ine it.  Knowing  that  his  vote  would  be  counted  against  it, 
he  would  not  give  a  whoop  whether  the  bill  was  good  or  bad."  4 
Further,  it  was  declared  that  many  really  popular  measures 
would  have  failed  in  the  past  under  such  majority  requirements, 

by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon  and  not  otherwise."  Oklahoma  Constitution, 
art.  5,  sec.  3  (1007).  "All  such  measures  shall  become  the  law  or  a  part  of  the  con- 
stitution when  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon,  provided,  the 
votes  cast  in  favor  of  said  initiative  measure  or  part  of  said  constitution  shall  consti- 
tute thirty-five  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  cast  at  said  election,  and  not  otherwise." 
Nebraska  Constitution,  art.  3,  sec.  10  (igi2).  One-third.  Washington  Constitution, 
art.  21,  sec.  id  (1912).  At  the  election  of  1914  the  voters  of  Oregon  defeated  an 
attempt  to  prevent  any  "single-tax"  legislation  in  the  future,  through  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  which  contained  a  provision  that  the  section  amended  should 
not  be  amended  or  repealed  except  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  electors  voting  upon 
the  issue.  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1914,  no.  356,  p.  97. 

1  Majority  Rule  League,  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  pp.  85-6. 

1  E.g.,  Oregon  Journal,  Oct.  21,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

'Taxpayers'  League,  Oregonian,  Nov.  3,  1912,  p.  15,  col.  3;  Oregon  Journal, 
Oct.  3,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2;  Oct.  21,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

4  Oregon  Journal,  Oct.  3,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2. 


The  Vote  in  Direct   Legislation  105 

and  the  experience  of  Oklahoma  was  also  cited  to  show  the  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  legislation  under  a  similar  provision.1  It 
is  certainly  true  that  some  of  the  measures  which  would  have 
failed  under  the  proposed  majority  requirements,  as  the  local 
initiative  and  referendum  amendment,  the  corrupt  practices  bill, 
the  employers'  liability  bill,  the  presidential  primary  bill,  and 
perhaps  others,  are  now,  at  least,  favored  by  most  of  the  voters. 

3 
The  Amount  of  Legislation  Enacted 

At  the  first  election  under  the  new  system  in  1904,  all  three 
of  the  measures  submitted  to  the  voters  —  a  proposal  for  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  referred  by  the  legislative  assembly  and 
two  bills  initiated  by  petition  —  were  approved  by  the  voters. 
At  the  election  of  1906  eight  measures  —  one  bill  referred  by 
petition,  three  initiative  bills  and  four  initiative  amendments  — 
were  approved,  and  three  measures  —  two  initiative  bills  and  one 
initiative  amendment  —  failed.  Of  the  measures  submitted 
at  the  election  of  1908  —  two  amendments  referred  by  the  legis- 
lature, two  acts  referred  by  petition,  five  initiative  bills  and  three 
initiative  amendments  —  twelve  in  all,  were  approved,  and  the 
other  seven  —  two  amendments  referred  by  the  legislature, 
two  acts  referred  by  petition,  and  three  initiative  amendments  — 
failed.  Nine  measures  were  approved  in  1910  —  one  act  referred 
by  the  legislature,  four  initiative  bills,  and  four  initiative  amend- 
ments—  and  twenty-three  failed,  including  four  amendments 
and  one  act  referred  by  the  legislature,  one  act  referred  by  peti- 
tion, three  initiative  amendments,  and  fourteen  initiative  bills. 
At  the  election  of  1912,  eleven  measures  passed,  including  two 
amendments  referred  by  the  legislature,  one  act  referred  by  peti- 
tion, three  initiative  amendments,  and  five  initiative  bills ;  but 

1  E.g.,  People's  Power  League,  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  pp.  34-5,  87-90. 
Cf.  Equity,  vol.  13,  pp.  63-5  (1911),  and,  especially,  W.  F.  Dodd,  Revision  and  Amend- 
ment of  State  Constitutions,  pp.  133-4, 185-200  (1910). 


io6     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

twenty-six  measures  failed,  including  four  amendments  referred 
by  the  legislature,  two  acts  referred  by  petition,  five  initiative 
amendments  and  fifteen  initiative  bills.  Four  of  the  five  acts 
referred  by  petition  at  the  special  election  of  1913  were  approved 
and  the  other  rejected.  Of  the  twenty-nine  measures  on  the 
ballot  at  the  election  of  1914  —  eight  amendments  and  two  acts 
submitted  by  the  legislature,  and  twelve  amendments  and  seven 
bills  initiated  by  petition  —  only  four  were  approved  by  the 
voters  —  two  constitutional  amendments  submitted  by  the 
legislature  and  two  initiated  by  petition. 

In  general,  the  greater  the  number  of  measures  on  the  ballot 
the  fewer  in  proportion  are  adopted  at  the  election.  But 
only  four  of  the  twenty-nine  measures  of  1914  were  ratified, 
in  comparison  with  the  eleven  of  the  thirty-seven  measures  of 
1912. 

Only  fifty-one  of  the  total  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-six  meas- 
ures, or  a  little  over  one-third,  were  adopted  by  the  voters. 
About  the  same  proportion  of  statutes  and  of  constitutional 
amendments  were  adopted,  twenty-eight  of  the  seventy-five 
statutes,  and  twenty-three  of  the  sixty-one  amendments. 
Further,  it  appears  that  eight  of  the  twenty-seven  measures 
submitted  by  the  legislative  assembly  and  eight  of  the  fourteen 
measures  referred  from  the  assembly  by  petition,  altogether 
sixteen  of  the  forty-one  measures,  were  adopted,  and  that 
thirty-five  of  the  ninety-five  initiative  measures  were  adopted. 
That  is,  the  promoters  of  initiative  measures  were  sustained  in 
nearly  the  same  proportion  of  cases  as  was  the  legislative  as- 
sembly. 

The  decreasing  proportion  of  the  measures  adopted  at  the 
general  elections  is  doubtless  due  chiefly  to  the  voters'  difficulty 
with  the  increasing  burden  of  the  ballot.  "  The  people  are  tired, ' ' 
and  many  of  them  become  more  and  more  inclined  to  use  their 
votes  as  a  protest  against  the  excessive  use  of  direct  legislation. 
The  conservatives  are  congratulating  themselves  upon  the  fact 
that  the  abuse  of  direct  legislation  is  thus  "working  out  its  own 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  107 

remedy."  1  But  some  meritorious  and  needed  legislation  has 
suffered  from  this  attitude.  "An  overloaded  ballot  ...  is  a 
menace  to  the  fullest  usefulness  of  direct  legislation,  for  by  pre- 
senting too  great  a  task  to  the  voters  it  invites  a  general  determi- 
nation to  vote  no  regardless  of  the  fact  that  many  of  the  meas- 
ures that  are  proposed  may  have  considerable  merit."  2 

But,  as  in  the  case  of  legislation  by  the  representative  assem- 
bly, the  proper  test  of  direct  legislation  does  not  lie  in  the  num- 
ber of  measures  enacted  or  defeated,  but  rather  in  the  character 
of  the  measures  enacted  or  defeated.3 


4 

The  Rationality  of  the  Vote 

1.  The  Confusion  of  the  Measure  with  the  Referendum. 

Voters  have  sometimes,  perhaps  often,  confused  the  referen- 
dum with  the  measure  referred,  and  so  their  votes  have  at  times 
had  the  effect  opposite  to  that  intended.  This  situation  has  been 
considered  serious  enough  to  call  for  a  proclamation  of  explana- 
tion of  the  matter  to  the  voters  by  the  secretary  of  state  4  and 
for  numerous  instructions  by  the  press. 

2.  The  Identification  of  Measures. 

The  inadequacy  of  ballot  titles,  especially  considering  the 
mass  of  measures  submitted  at  the  elections,  in  many  cases  has 

1  Oregonian,  Nov.  6,  1914,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

1  Eugene  Register,  Nov.  7,  1914,  p.  4,  col.  i.    Below,  pp.  121-3. 

9  Oregonian,  Jan.  26,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  3. 

4  "Probably  the  best  guide  for  the  voter  to  follow  would  be  to  ask  himself  the 
question :  'Am  I  in  favor  of  the  bill  becoming  a  law? '  If  so  he  votes  'yes.'  If  he 
is  not  in  favor  of  it  becoming  a  law  he  should  vote  'no.'  The  voter  votes  directly 
upon  the  measure  before  him,  and  not  on  the  question  of  sustaining  the  referendum 
petition.  Voters  must  bear  in  mind  solely  that  if  they  are  in  favor  of  any  measure 
they  vote  'yes,'  and  if  opposed  to  it  they  vote  'no.'  This  same  question  has  arisen 
prior  to  other  elections  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  many  have  voted  contrary  to  their 
desires  by  reason  of  their  not  knowing  how  to  properly  mark  the  ballot."  Ben  W. 
Olcott,  Secretary  of  State,  Eugene  Register,  Nov.  4,  1913,  p.  i,  col.  5. 


io8     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

made  the  identification  of  measures  on  the  ballot  difficult,1  and 
has  thus  caused  confusion  in  voting.  This  has  been  true  partic- 
ularly in  those  cases  in  which  two  or  more  measures  on  the  same 
subject  have  appeared  on  the  ballot. 

3.  Knowledge  of  the  Contents  of  Measures. 

"We  think  the  assertion  may  safely  be  ventured  that  it  is 
only  the  few  persons  who  earnestly  favor  or  zealously  oppose 
the  passage  of  a  proposed  law  initiated  by  petition  who  have 
attentively  studied  its  contents  and  know  how  it  will  probably 
affect  their  private  interests.  The  greater  number  of  voters 
do  not  possess  this  information  and  usually  derive  their  knowl- 
edge of  the  merits  of  a  proposed  law  from  an  inspection  of  the 
title  thereof,  which  is  sometimes  secured  only  from  the  very 
meager  details  afforded  by  a  ballot  which  is  examined  in  an  elec- 
tion booth  preparatory  to  exercising  the  right  of  suffrage."  2 
"As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  our  initiative  laws  are  adopted  or  re- 
jected on  the  sole  basis  of  what  can  be  expressed  in  the  titles."  3 
The  actual  amount  of  "law-making  by  titles"  is  doubtless 
greatly  exaggerated  by  such  statements,  but  it  is  certainly  true 
that  in  some  cases  voters  do,  indeed,  derive  their  knowledge  of 
the  contents  of  a  proposed  law  "from  an  inspection  of  the  title 
thereof." 4  And  naturally  voters  have  doubtless  sometimes 
been  thus  mistaken  as  to  the  contents  of  measures  before  them. 
The  amendment  of  1910  to  the  local  option  liquor  law,  in  spite 
of  repeated  warnings  from  press  and  pulpit,  was  certainly  mis- 
understood, on  account  of  its  ballot  title,  by  a  large  number  of 
voters,  and  taken  for  a  restriction  of  the  liquor  traffic  instead  of 
the  opposite,  and  the  amendment  might  not  have  been  ap- 

1  Above,  pp.  52-3.  As  an  aid  against  confusion  by  the  mass  of  measures  on  the 
ballot,  it  is  very  common  for  voters  to  take  into  the  voting  booth  a  "sample  ballot" 
already  marked,  or  a  list  of  recommendations  on  measures  clipped  from  a  newspaper, 
or  a  marked  list  of  the  numbers  of  the  measures  to  be  voted  on. 

*  Slate  v.  Richardson,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  48,  pp.  309,  319  (1906). 

*0regonian,  Nov.  25,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i. 

4  And  that  inspection,  too,  apparently  takes  place  only  in  the  election  booth  in 
some  cases.  Above,  pp.  95-6. 


The  Vote  in  Direct   Legislation  109 

proved  but  for  that  error.  Misleading  titles  in  other  measures 
— the  Barlow  road  bill,  the  "  taxpayers' "  suffrage  amendment  — 
were  apparently  not  so  effective.1 

In  some  other  cases  voters  have  been  ignorant  of  essential 
provisions  of  the  measures  for  which  they  have  voted,  at  times 
because  of  their  dependence  on  the  title  for  their  knowledge  of 
the  contents  of  the  measure.  And  even  the  ballot  title  receives 
scant  attention  from  many  voters. 

The  case  of  the  judicial  amendment  of  1910  is  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  this  fact.  This  was  popularly  known  as  the  "  three- 
fourths  jury  amendment,"  and  it  is  very  probable  that  a  very 
great  majority  of  the  voters  were  entirely  ignorant  of  most  of 
the  other  features  of  the  measure.  But  the  whole  article  of  the 
constitution  on  the  judiciary  was  involved.  Says  a  justice  of 
the  supreme  court  (in  office  when  the  amendment  was  submitted) : 
"Here  is  the  situation:  An  important  part  of  the  constitution 
of  this  state  has  been  changed,  and  no  one  .  .  .  ever  knew  until 
after  the  vote  was  taken  that  it  repealed  an  entire  article  of  that 
most  important  document.  It  completely  wiped  out  portions 
of  that  instrument  to  which  no  objection  had  ever  been  made, 
and  without  which  it  is  impossible  for  the  judicial  arm  of  the 
state  to  get  along  only  by  presuming  the  existence  of  certain  es- 
sential powers  necessary  to  its  proper  exercise  of  the  functions 
of  the  court."  2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  proposition  had  been 
discussed  to  some  extent  by  the  press,  and  even  a  glance  over 
the  ballot  title  should  have  disclosed  proposals  for  important 
changes  in  the  constitution.  "The  truth  is,  the  issues  involved 
and  the  consequences  threatened,  which  were  not  of  enough  in- 
terest to  such  leaders  of  the  bar  as  Judge  Slater  to  cause  them  to 
read  the  newspaper  discussions,  were  decidedly  dull  and  ab- 
struse to  the  ordinary  voter.  The  voters  wanted  verdicts  by 
three-fourths  of  the  jury  and  they  wanted  technicalities  swept 
away  in  consideration  of  appeals.  They  were  told  that  the 
amendment  would  give  them  those  two  things.  They  decided 

1  Above,  pp.  42-3.  l  W.  T.  Slater,  Oregonian,  Nov.  25,  IQII,  p.  8,  col.  i. 


no     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

the  whole  question  and  all  its  ramifications  on  the  (to  them) 
understandable  factors  it  contained.  They  did  not  care  for  dry 
discussions  of  its  other  features.  Generally  they  did  not  bother 
to  read  them."  l 

Another  illustration  of  the  concentration  of  the  voters'  attention 
upon  one  feature  of  a  measure  to  the  exclusion  of  other,  and 
equally  or  more  important  features,  is  the  vote  on  the  "home- 
rule"  tax  amendment  of  1910,  above  mentioned.2  Both  the  poll 
tax  and  the  home-rule  pro  visions  of  that  amendment  were  covered 
by  the  ballot  title,  and  both  were  emphasized  by  the  supporters 
of  the  amendment,  but  other  very  essential  provisions  of  the 
measure  were  not  indicated  in  the  title.  However,  the  poll-tax 
provision  was  probably  the  only  part  of  the  measure  that  was 
heeded  by  most  of  the  voters.  "We  woke  up  to  find  that 
instead  of  abolishing  [the]  poll  tax,  we  had  passed  a  measure  giv- 
ing county  home  rule  in  taxation."  3  Approved  by  a  majority 
of  thirty-seven  per  cent  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  election,  the 
measure  was  repealed  by  an  amendment  at  the  next  election 
by  a  majority  of  forty-four  per  cent. 

The  forms  in  which  amendments  to  the  constitution  or  statutes 
are  drawn  —  the  provision  as  amended  being  given  without 
the  original  form 4  —  must  add  to  the  errors  caused  by  depend- 
ence on  ballot  titles  and  by  inadvertence.  The  amendment 
repealing  this  "home-rule"  provision6  is  a  fine  example  of  this 
form  of  legislation.  And  it  is  probable  that  on  this  account 

1  Oregonian,  Nov.  25,  ign,  p.  8,  col.  i.  See  also  F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of 
Unsatisfactory  Results  under  Initiative  Amendments  of  the  Oregon  Constitution, 
pp.  30-46  (1910).  *  Above,  p.  42. 

1  Open  Letter  from  Six  Men  of  Oregon,  1911.  « Above,  pp.  51-2. 

*  "For  constitutional  amendment  to  repeal  all  of  section  la  of  article  IX  except 
that  part  prohibiting  poll  and  head  taxes,  in  Oregon,  and  instead  of  the  portions  re- 
pealed to  add  a  provision  prohibiting  the  declaration  of  an  emergency  in  any  act 
passed  by  the  legislature  regulating  taxation  and  exemptions." 

"ARTICLE  IX 

"Section  la.  No  poll  or  head  tax  shall  be  levied  or  collected  in  Oregon.  The  leg- 
islative assembly  shall  not  declare  an  emergency  in  any  act  regulating  taxation 
or  exemption."  Senate  Joint  Resolution,  1911,  no.  10. 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  1 1 1 

many  who  voted  for  the  amendment  did  not  know  that  they 
were  voting  for  the  repeal  of  home  rule.  Indeed  some  may 
have  voted  for  the  amendment  solely  because  it  contained  a 
stricture  upon  the  legislature's  attaching  emergency  clauses 
to  tax  measures,  which  was  substituted  for  the  obligatory  ref- 
erendum in  force  before.  And  some  may  have  thought  they 
were  abolishing  the  poll  tax. 

The  "millage  bill"  of  1912  for  the  university  and  agricultural 
college,  through  no  fault  of  either  title  or  text,  lost  many  votes 
hi  at  least  several  parts  of  the  state  because  it  was  understood 
by  some  to  provide  mileage  for  teachers  or  students.  A  great 
many  voters,  perhaps  the  most  of  them,  were  unaware  that  the 
presidential  primary  bill  of  1910  contained  a  provision  for 
"proportional  representation,"  no  mention  of  which  was  made  in 
the  ballot  title. 

The  difficulty  of  the  subject-matter  of  measures  submitted 1 
has  doubtless  often  caused  voters  to  vote  contrary  to  their  real 
intentions.  It  seems  certain  that  the  nature  of  the  highly 
technical  initiative  freight-rate  bill  of  1912  was  entirely  mis- 
understood by  great  numbers  of  those  who  voted  for  it.  The 
bill  was  framed  in  the  interests  of  eastern  and  southern  Oregon, 
and  favored  the  development  of  jobbing  centers  in  those  sections 
in  competition  with  Portland.  But  it  was  approved  by  the 
voters  of  every  county  of  the  state  except  two,  and  even  by  the 
voters  of  Multnomah  county  in  which  Portland  is  located,  who 
gave  over  a  fourth  of  the  votes  in  favor  of  the  measure,  hi  spite 
of  the  fact  that  it  had  been  condemned  generally  by  the  Port- 
land press  as  unfair  to  that  vicinity.  It  is  very  probable  that 
most  of  those  who  voted  for  the  bill  believed  it  designed  as  a 
check  upon  the  power  of  the  railroads  to  the  general  advantage 
of  the  people  of  the  state — some  sort  of  an  "anti-corporation" 
measure.  The  defeat  in  every  county  of  the  state  except  the 
county  particularly  affected  and  one  other  meeting  the  constitu- 
tional amendment  submitted  in  1914  which  permitted  the  con- 

1  Above,  pp.  37-41. 


i  12      Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

solidation  of  a  city  of  over  one  hundred  thousand  population 
with  the  county  was  apparently  due  to  mistake  on  the  part  of 
the  voters  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  amendment. 

4.  Attention  to  Legal  Technicalities  of  Form. 

The  "anti-pass"  bill  of  1906  and  the  eight-hour  labor  bill  of 
1912,  both  initiated  by  petition  and  approved  by  the  voters, 
were  without  enacting  clauses,  and  thus,  of  course,  were  of  no 
legal  effect.  This  has  often  been  given  in  evidence  of  the  un- 
fitness  of  the  voters  for  participation  in  direct  legislation.  It  is 
probably  true  that  most  of  the  voters  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
defect  in  the  measures  or  even  knew  that  the  enacting  clause  was 
essential.  It  is  of  course  very  probable  that  but  very  few  voters 
indeed  ever  pay  any  attention  to  any  formal  technicalities  in 
this  connection. 

5.  The  Vote  on  Subjects  Unsuitable  to  Direct  Legislation. 

The  special  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  voters'  proper  consid- 
eration of  technical  and  complicated  measures  and  measures 
of  local  interest  submitted  to  them1  has  not  only  probably 
often  caused  mistakes  in  voting  on  the  part  of  voters,  but  has 
probably  to  an  extent  nullified  direct  legislation  in  the  case  of 
some  measures.  Many  persons,  upon  principle,  habitually 
vote  against  any  such  measures  if  initiated  by  petition,  and  in 
favor  of  such  measures  if  referred  by  petition,  as  a  rebuke  to 
those  responsible  for  bringing  unsuitable  questions  before  the 
voters. 

The  technical  nature  of  the  subject  was  doubtless  chiefly  re- 
sponsible for  the  defeat  of  various  meritorious  measures  for  the 
administration  of  tax  reform.2  The  same  cause  contributed  to 
the  defeat  of  the  "blue-sky"  bill  of  1912,  also  a  meritorious 
measure.  The  extremely  complicated  character  of  the  two  radi- 

1  Above,  pp.  37-41. 

1  The  essential  character  of  the  approaches  to  the  single  tax  proposed  in  Oregon 
have  probably  been  pretty  well  understood,  and  rejected  because  of  opposition  to 
the  principle  involved. 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  113 

cal  proposals  for  the  reorganization  of  the  legislative  assembly 
partially  explains  their  rejection  at  the  polls.1 

Some  technical  and  complicated  measures  have  met  approval 
doubtless  for  the  reason  that  their  general  policy  was  of  vital  in- 
terest and  well  understood  by  the  voters.  The  corrupt  practices 
act,  the  employers'  liability  act,  and  the  workmen's  compensa- 
tion act  are  illustrations  in  point.  The  extremely  complex  con- 
stitutional amendment  for  the  reorganization  of  the  judicial 
system  of  the  state  submitted  by  the  legislative  assembly  was 
defeated  probably  not  so  much  on  account  of  its  complexity  2 
as  for  the  reason  that  it  provided  for  an  increase  in  the  number 
of  the  justices  of  the  supreme  court,  for  at  the  next  election  the 
similar  measure  initiated  by  petition  but  containing  no  provi- 
sion for  such  increase  was  adopted. 

The  highly  technical  freight-rate  bill  of  1912  was  adopted, 
probably,  simply  because  it  was  erroneously  believed  to  be  an 
"anti-corporation"  measure. 

Local  measures,  of  the  merits  of  which  the  voters  of  the  state 
generally  can  have  little  knowledge,3  have  generally  suffered  at 
the  election.  The  approval  of  the  Hood  River  county  bill  by 
the  voters  in  1908  apparently  encouraged  the  "county-slicers" 
in  submitting  eight  such  bills  at  the  next  election,  but  every 
one  of  them  was  defeated.  The  same  fate  met  a  similar  bill  in 
1912.  " The  people  of  the  state  will  not  vote  to  create  new  coun- 
ties, because  they  are  not  familiar  with  local  conditions  and  do 
not  want  to  have  such  questions  passed  up  to  them."  4 

6.  The  Vote  on  Measures  Submitted  by  Selfish  Interests. 
According  to  Jonathan  Bourne's  "friction  theory  of  com- 
munity endeavor"  (as  it  has  been  dubbed)  all  attempts  to  pro- 

1  "  How  many  of  the  complex  and  technical  bills  submitted  were  adopted  ?  That 
is  the  real  test.  The  people  at  the  last  election  showed  an  increasing  disposition  to 
vote  down  bills  dealing  with  such  questions.  ...  As  the  people  become  accustomed 
to  use  the  new  machinery  they  show  increasing  discrimination  between  subjects  on 
which  they  can  well  vote  directly  and  subjects  which  are  better  left  to  the  legisla- 
ture." Oregonian,  Aug.  18,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i.  *  Above,  pp.  37-8,  44-6. 

8  Above,  p.  40.  4  L.  E.  Bean,  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  18,  1913,  p.  3,  col.  5. 
I 


ii4     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

mote  narrow  selfish  ends  by  direct  legislation  are  doomed  to 
ultimate  failure,  and  must  result  in  a  disposition  to  use  the  sys- 
tem for  the  public  good.  "Where  individuals  act  collectively 
or  as  a  community,  —  as  they  must  under  the  initiative,  referen- 
dum, and  recall,  —  an  infinite  number  of  different  forces  are  set 
in  motion,  most  of  them  selfish,  each  struggling  for  supremacy, 
but  all  different  because  of  the  difference  in  the  personal  equations 
of  the  different  individuals  constituting  the  community.  Because 
of  their  difference,  friction  is  created  —  each  different  selfish  in- 
terest attacks  the  others  because  of  its  difference.  No  selfish 
interest  is  powerful  enough  to  overcome  all  the  others;  they 
must  wear  each  other  away  until  general  welfare,  according  to 
the  views  of  the  majority  acting,  is  substituted  for  the  individual 
selfish  interest.  .  .  .  Under  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  re- 
call there  can  be  no  class  or  community  action  against  the  general 
welfare  of  the  citizens  constituting  the  zone  of  action.  The 
individual,  through  realization  of  the  impossiblity  of  securing 
special  legislation  for  himself  and  against  the  general  welfare  of 
the  community,  soon  ceases  his  efforts  for  special  privilege  and 
contents  himself  with  efforts  for  improved  general  welfare.  Thus 
the  individual,  class,  and  community  develop  along  lines  of 
general  welfare  rather  than  along  lines  of  selfish  interest.  .  .  . 
Community  action  determines  the  average  of  individual  inter- 
ests, and  secures  the  greatest  good  for  the  greatest  number, 
which  is  the  desideratum  of  organized  society.  .  .  .  Similar 
results  are  accomplished  through  the  referendum." 1  This 
theory  may  not  meet  general  acceptance,  but,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  in  the  few  instances  where  initiative  or  referendum  move- 
ments have  been  promoted  by  selfish  narrow  interests 2  they  have 
generally  been  defeated.8 

1 J.  Bourne,  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  122, 
123-5  (1009).  And  see  comment  in  New  York  Evening  Sun,  reprinted  in  Oregonian, 
Jan.  19,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  7.  *  Above,  pp.  113-15. 

1  Of  course  it  is  generally  impossible  to  segregate  the  vote  of  the  various  interests 
at  an  election.  But  a  very  plausible  explanation  of  the  continuously  adverse  votes  of 
some  counties  against  the  state  university  acts  submitted  to  the  people  is  the  fact  that 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  115 

Where  proposed  legislation  involves  a  conflict  of  interests 
between  two  classes  of  voters,  the  numerically  larger  class  may 
have  an  undue  advantage  in  the  indifference  of  voters  not 
directly  interested,  and  thus  attain  their  end  to  a  considerable 
extent  by  weight  of  their  own  numbers  —  i.e.,  by  "brute  force."  1 

7.  The  Vote  on  Conflicting  Measures.2 

"It  has  been  amply  illustrated  in  Oregon  that  when  two  or 
more  bills  of  the  same  general  purport  but  differing  in  details 
are  presented  all  will  be  defeated,  although  a  majority  may 
favor  the  main  issue  involved."  3  The  experience  with  the  sev- 
eral initiative  road  measures  of  1912  is  the  best  justification  of 
this  doctrine.  "  Two  years  ago  the  legislature  attacked  the  prob- 
lem, and  the  net  result  of  the  deliberations  was  nothing  at  all. 
Last  year  a  solution  was  attempted  through  the  initiative,  but  the 
same  influences  that  had  defeated  action  in  the  legislature  were 
found  to  be  present.  Warring  factions  arose,  each  firmly  con- 
vinced that  its  plan,  and  its  plan  alone,  would  result  in  getting 
good  results.  Efforts  were  made  to  compromise,  but  without 
avail.  Three  programs  finally  went  before  the  people  and  the 
result  was  that  all  were  defeated."  4  "Too  many  measures  dis- 
puting for  votes  on  the  same  subject  were  submitted.  The  elec- 
tors will  nearly  always  vote  right  if  given  half  a  chance.  They 
cannot  pass  measures  satisfactorily  if  conflicting  bills  are  pre- 
sented to  divide  and  confuse  them."  5 

The  defeat  of  both  the  university  appropriation  referendum 
bill  of  1912  and  the  millage-tax  bill,  which  was  initiated  at  the 
same  election  because  of  fear  of  defeat  of  the  former,  was  due 

those  counties  contain  colleges  of  their  own,  rivals  of  the  university.  See  especially 
Oregonian,  June  3,  1908,  p.  8,  col.  4.  However,  although  this  explanation  may  be 
true,  wholly  or  in  part,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  greater  number  of  other  counties, 
with  no  such  local  institutions  to  favor,  have  always  given  majorities  against  the 
university. 

1  Oregonian,  Oct.  4,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  i.  8  Above,  pp.  47-9. 

'Oregonian,  Apr.  14,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  2.  See  also  especially  ibid.,  June  10,  1913, 
p.  10,  col.  2.  *  Eugene  Register,  Jan.  19,  1913,  p.  12,  col.  i. 

e  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  9,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i. 


n 6     Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

probably  in  some  degree  to  confusion  on  the  part  of  the  voters 
induced  by  the  conflicting  measures. 

The  enactment  by  the  people  of  both  the  Columbia  river  fishing 
bills  of  1908  has  been  interpreted  in  different  ways.  For  years 
previous  the  rival  interests  represented  by  the  gill-netters  of  the 
lower  Columbia  and  the  wheelmen  of  the  upper  Columbia,  re- 
spectively, had  succeeded  in  the  legislative  assembly  each  in 
defeating  the  legislation  proposed  by  the  other.  A  decision  by 
the  voters  of  the  state  seemed  the  only  solution,  and  hence  each 
faction  initiated  a  bill  prohibiting  the  other's  method  of  fishing. 
Both  bills  were  approved,  and  the  river  was  thus  closed  to  com- 
mercial fishing.1  Some  interpreted  the  vote  as  evidence  of  the 
voters'  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  the  bills.2  But  according  to 
the  other,  and  apparently  true  view,  the  voters  knew  what  they 
were  doing.  "The  electors,  in  an  access  of  disgust,  tinged  with 
sardonic  humor,  passed  both  bills  by  different  but  decisive 
majorities."  3 

Although  a  number  of  other  sets  of  conflicting  measures  have 
appeared  on  the  ballot,  in  these  cases  the  conflict  probably  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  result  of  the  election.  Indeed  the  conflict 
was  not  very  clear  to  any  one  in  some  cases ;  and  probably  ab- 
solutely unknown  in  one  case. 

Unless  the  Columbia  river  legislation  should  be  so  inter- 
preted, there  has  been  only  one  case  where  confusion  has  actually 
been  caused  by  the  adoption  of  conflicting  measures,  and,  in  the 
absence  of  judicial  interpretation,  this  case  is  still  uncertain. 
But  it  would  seem  that  the  tax-exemption  law  of  1912  is  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  constitution  as  amended  at  the  same  election. 
This  conflict  was  apparently  wholly  unsuspected  at  the  time 
of  the  election. 

1  See  especially  Report  of  Oregon  Conservation  Commission,  1908,  pp.  119-20. 

*  See  especially  C.  H.  Carey,  New  Responsibilities  of  Citizenship,  Proceedings 
of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  18,  38  (1909). 

1  Report  of  the  Oregon  Conservation  Commission,  1908,  p.  119.  See  also  W.  S. 
U'Ren,  reported  in  Chicago  City  Club  Bulletin,  vol.  2,  p.  473  (1909) ;  R.  W.  Montague, 
Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3,  pp.  256,  263  (1914). 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  117 

The  only  (apparent)  attempt  to  defeat  reform  legislation  by 
proposing  an  alternative  measure  at  the  same  election  and  con- 
fusing the  voters  confronted  with  rival  measures x  came  to 
nothing.  The  bill  providing  for  a  commission  for  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  subject  of  employers'  liability  was  defeated,  and  the 
employers'  liability  law  was  enacted. 

The  inability  of  the  people  to  decide  between  conflicting 
measures  may,  as  in  the  case  of  the  road  bills,  throw  back  upon 
the  legislative  assembly  the  responsibility  which  was  thrust 
upon  the  people  on  account  of  the  failure  of  action  by  the 
assembly.2 

In  order  to  prevent  the  defeat  of  all  rival  measures  in  cases 
where  voters  have  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  relative  merits 
of  the  several  measures,  but  prefer  the  enactment  of  any  one 
of  them  rather  than  the  defeat  of  all,  it  has  been  urged  that 
voters  should  vote  for  all  such  measures.3  But  this  might  result 
in  the  serious  confusion  of  the  law.  For  the  measure  approved 
securing  the  highest  affirmative  vote  does  not  as  a  whole  become 
the  law  to  the  exclusion  of  other  measures  approved,  but  all 
measures  approved  go  into  effect  except  so  far  as  they  may  be  in 
conflict  with  provisions  of  measures  receiving  a  higher  number  of 
affirmative  votes.4  "It  ought  to  be  plain  that  to  vote  yes  on 
all  bills  dealing  with  the  same  subject  would  be  as  indefinite  as 
enactment  of  laws  by  some  form  of  lottery.  The  result  would 
be  a  tangle  that  could  be  unraveled  only  after  tedious  recourse  to 
the  courts."  6 

8.  Conservatism  and  Progressivism  in  the  Vote.6 

A  combination  of  conservative  and  progressive  or  radical 

tendencies  is  indicated  by  the  vote  cast  on  the  measures  at  the 

elections. 

1  Above,  p.  4Q.  2  Below,  pp.  154-5. 

1  See  especially  report  in  Oregonian,  Nov.  26,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 
4  Above,  p.  47.  *  Oregonian,  Nov.  26,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  2.     See  above,  p.  48. 

•"The  composite  voter  whose  mind  and  purpose  are  portrayed  by  these  votes 
appears  to  be  one  jealous  of  his  own  rights  and  privileges,  as  most  men  are ;  resolute 


u8     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

Proposals  for  granting  the  suffrage  to  women  were  defeated 
at  three  succeeding  elections  before  the  suffrage  was  finally 
granted. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  the  measures  submitted  for  the  avowed 
purpose  of  increasing  the  "people's  power"  have  been  approved 
by  the  voters,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  amendments  for  the 
extensive  reorganization  of  the  legislative  department,  the 
amendment  establishing  proportional  representation  in  the  house 
of  representatives,  the  amendment  for  the  abolition  of  the  state 
senate,  and  the  bill  providing  for  a  board  of  people's  inspectors 
and  an  official  gazette.  Moreover,  measures  deemed  hostile  to 
the  "people's  rule"  have  been  defeated.  The  bills  providing 
home-rule  methods  of  creating  new  counties,  etc.,  were  defeated, 
probably  because  they  would  have  made  easier  the  creation  of 
additional  offices  with  additional  taxation.  The  defeat  of  the 
non-partisan  judiciary  bill  perhaps  indicates  some  reaction 
against  the  independent  attitude  of  the  voters  prevalent  for 
some  years. 

The  measures  relating  to  the  creation  or  regulation  of  public 
offices  and  institutions,  or  functions  involving  the  expenditure 
of  public  money,  have  been  in  most  cases  defeated,  and  most  of 
the  measures  designed  to  limit  the  expenditure  of  public  money 
have  passed.1  The  defeat  of  the  two  bills  providing  for  the  con- 
solidation of  certain  state  departments,  in  spite  of  the  agitation — 
years  old  —  for  elimination  and  consolidation  of  offices,  was 

to  see  his  government  actually,  as  well  as  theoretically,  deriving  its  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed,  and  to  see  politics  clean  and  fair ;  desirous  of  improve- 
ment of  his  institutions;  open  to  thoughtful  advice,  and  mindful  of  well  seasoned 
opinion  as  to  the  means  of  betterment,  but  adverse  to  visionary  innovations ;  reluc- 
tant to  create  new  offices,  and  stingy  with  salaries  to  public  officers,  but  yielding  that 
point  occasionally  when  involved  with  some  higher  good ;  nearly  abreast  of  the  best 
thought  of  the  time  in  matters  of  social  and  industrial  regulation,  but  lagging  behind, 
and  a  bit  muddled,  in  economics ;  and,  until  he  reads  the  title  clear  of  would-be  spend- 
ers of  the  public  money,  saving  with  it  to  a  fault."  R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon  System 
at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3,  pp.  256,  265  (1914). 

1  At  the  election  of  1913  four  of  the  five  measures  submitted  involved  additional 
expenditures  and  the  four  were  approved  by  the  voters.  The  other  bill,  not  involv- 
ing expenditures,  was  defeated. 


The  Vote  in   Direct  Legislation  119 

probably  due  chiefly  to  the  voters  becoming  generally  aware  that 
the  real  purpose  of  this  legislation  was  not  to  secure  economy 
in  government  but  to  legislate  out  of  office  individuals  who  had 
come  into  conflict  with  the  real  authors  of  these  measures.  How- 
ever, one  of  the  bills  added  a  new  function  to  the  consolidated 
department.  The  defeat  of  the  city-county  consolidation  amend- 
ment must  have  been  due  to  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  the  pro- 
posal. 

In  view  of  the  conservative  attitude  of  the  people  toward 
public  expenditures,  thus  made  apparent,  the  customary  at- 
tachment of  the  emergency  clause  1  to  certain  appropriations  by 
the  legislative  assembly  is  very  significant.  But  although  in 
cases  of  most  of  the  measures  the  saving  of  money  was  probably 
the  determining  motive  in  the  vote,  in  many  cases  other  motives 
were  controlling,  Moreover,  it  should  be  noted  that  in  recent 
years,  especially  during  this  period  of  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum, great  developments  have  been  undertaken  very  generally 
by  the  localities  as  well  as  by  the  state,  with  the  result  that  the 
financial  burdens  have  in  many  cases  become  far  too  heavy 
without  the  addition  of  further  taxation,  and  that  the  expendi- 
tures proposed  were  doubtless,  in  some  cases,  for  other  reasons 
unwise. 

Most  of  the  "tax  reform"  measures  have  been  defeated,  prob- 
ably in  most  cases  on  account  of  the  technical  nature 2  of  the 
proposals. 

All  the  measures  concerned  with  the  administration  of  the 
criminal  law  were  adopted  except  the  bill  abolishing  capital 
punishment  and  regulating  the  pardoning  power  and  the  bill 
providing  for  the  sterilization  of  habitual  criminals  and  other 
degenerates.  The  adoption  of  the  amendment  for  the  abolition 
of  capital  punishment,  after  the  defeat  of  the  similar  measure 
at  the  preceding  election,  can  doubtless  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that  women  voted  at  the  last  election.  Until  the  last  election 
the  vote  on  the  measures  dealing  with  the  liquor  traffic  on  the 

1  Below,  pp.  138,  140.  a  Above,  pp.  37-41. 


I2O     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

whole  showed  the  people  to  be  in  favor  of  local  option  and  op- 
posed to  state-wide  prohibition.  But  the  women's  vote  at  that 
election  was  largely  responsible  for  the  decision  in  favor  of  state- 
wide prohibition. 

The  bill  regulating  the  licensing  of  dentists  (by  lowering  the 
standards)  was  rejected  in  spite  of  a  strenuous  campaign  in  its 
favor  as  a  "  trust-busting  "  measure. 

Measures  designed  to  regulate  corporations  and  other  inter- 
ests have  almost  all  been  approved.  The  exception  of  the 
"blue-sky"  bill  was  doubtless  due  to  the  proposal  for  the  crea- 
tion of  a  new  department  which  it  included. 

The  three  most  radical  measures  submitted  for  the  benefit  of 
the  labor  class  —  the  eight-hour  bill  for  female  workers,  the 
universal  eight-hour  amendment,  and  the  unemployment  amend- 
ment —  were  defeated,  but  the  others  passed.  All  the  measures 
inimical  to  the  labor  interests  were  rejected. 

Most  of  the  county-division  and  county-boundary  bills  — 
involving  questions  of  wholly  local  interest  —  were  defeated. 

It  thus  appears  that  all  the  most  radical  measures  were  rejected 
by  the  voters  —  the  two  proposals  for  the  reorganization  of  the 
legislative  assembly,  the  bill  providing  for  people's  inspectors 
and  an  official  gazette,  the  amendment  providing  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  senate,  the  "single-tax"  measures,  the  sterilization 
bill,  the  women's  eight-hour  bill,  the  universal  eight-hour 
amendment,  and  the  unemployment  amendment.  Although 
the  constitutional  amendment  permitting  the  use  of  propor- 
tional representation,  and  the  presidential  primary  bill,  in 
which  the  principle  of  proportional  representation  is  applied, 
were  accepted  by  the  voters,  they  rejected  the  proposal  to 
apply  proportional  representation  to  the  composition  of  the 
house  of  representatives.  Such  a  provision  was  also  contained 
in  the  two  rejected  proposals  for  the  reorganization  of  the  legis- 
lative assembly. 

On  the  whole  it  appears  that  the  voters  have  shown  a  decidedly 
progressive  attitude  in  direct  legislation. 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  121 

9.  The  Vote  of  the  Uncertain  Voter. 

The  voter  who  is  uncertain  as  to  the  merits  of  measures  sub- 
mitted to  his  decision  is  confronted  with  two  kinds  of  advice  as 
to  how  he  should  act. 

"  When  in  doubt,  note  NO."  1  "  When  the  ballot  is  so  encum- 
bered .  .  .  the  only  defense  of  the  voter  who  does  not  wish  to 
run  the  risk  of  turning  things  topsy-turvy  is  to  vote  'no'  on  all 
measures  that  he  does  not  fully  understand."  2  This  principle 
is  doubtless  applied  by  some  voters  to  both  initiative  and  refer- 
endum measures  alike,  on  the  theory  that  by  the  approval  of 
either  they  are  assuming  the  responsibility  for  the  enactment  of 
law.  But  probably  more  voters  make  a  distinction  between 
initiative  and  referendum  measures  in  this  regard,  and,  while 
they  reject  initiative  measures  in  the  absence  of  positive  evi- 
dence of  their  merits,  place  the  responsibility  for  the  measures 
referred  principally  upon  the  legislative  assembly,  and  consid- 
ering the  approval  by  the  assembly  as  prima  facie  evidence  of 
their  merits,  vote,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  against  their 
merits,  for  all  measures  passed  by  the  assembly.3 

"When  in  doubt,  don't  vote."  "One  sometimes  hears  it  said 
that  when  in  doubt  you  should  vote  'NO.'  This  is  one  of  the 
most  pernicious  fallacies  developed  under  popular  rule.  If 
carried  out  it  would  block  progress  and  make  the  rule  of  stupid 
standpattism  effective.  Because  an  individual  has  not  suffi- 
cient intelligence,  or  is  too  lazy  to  consider  a  measure  and  make 
up  his  mind  conscientiously,  is  no  reason  for  standing  in  the 
path  of  more  intelligent  and  more  energetic  people.  A  con- 
scientious voter  taking  that  attitude  is  hard  to  imagine.  If 
a  voter  is  worthy  of  citizenship  he  will  either  make  up  his  mind 
one  way  or  the  other  about  a  measure  submitted  and  vote  ac- 
cordingly, or  he  will  refrain  from  voting  on  it.  He  will  refuse  to 

1  "When  in  doubt,  vote  'NO.'  Vote  'NO,'  unless  you  have  been  convinced  by  a 
personal  investigation  that  the  measure  is  for  the  public  interest,  and  should  pass." 
Oregonian,  Sept.  25,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

1  Eugene  Register,  Sept.  i,  1912,  p.  12,  col.  2. 

*  Oregonian,  Oct.  15,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  2 ;  Nov.  14,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  *. 


122     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

try  to  hold  back  the  whole  community  on  account  of  his  own 
ignorance  or  apathy.  He  will  refuse  to  nullify  with  his  'no' 
cast  from  ignorance,  the  intelligent  'yes'  of  some  one  who  has 
given  thought  to  the  matter.  He  will  refuse  to  shirk  his  own 
civic  duty,  and  at  the  same  time  block  the  exercise  of  good 
citizenship  by  another.  The  advocate  of  the  principle  of  voting 
'no'  when  in  doubt,  advocates  the  rule  of  ignorance  in  an  age 
of  enlightenment."  l 

But,  it  is  objected,  "failure  to  vote  simply  reduces  the  oppo- 
sition and  virtually  assists  something  which  you  might  later 
wish  you  had  resisted."  2  Further,  it  is  said,  this  is  "lawmaking 
by  proxy."  It  operates  to  "relieve  the  people  as  a  whole  of  the 
duty  of  deciding  on  any  measure  submitted  for  their  action,  and 
leaves  it  to  a  selected  group  and  informed  few,  an  assembly 
commissioned  to  decide  questions  or  issues  for  the  whole  elec- 
torate. The  Oregon  system  is  for  all  the  people,  not  a  part  of 
the  people.  If  a  part  of  the  people  only  discharged  their  obliga- 
tions as  lawmakers,  the  system  is  a  failure."  3  "If  this  delightful 
advice  were  accepted  generally,  it  would  mean  that  in  order  to 
get  their  pet  plans  enacted  into  law,  the  tinkerers  and  schemers 
would  need  only  to  word  them  in  such  a  manner  that  understand- 
ing would  be  impossible,  and  then  trust  to  their  coterie  of  fol- 
lowers to  cast  the  small  number  of  votes  that  would  be  needed." 4 

In  practice,  a  large  majority  of  the  measures  submitted  to  the 
voters  have  failed,  and  the  proportion  of  measures  rejected  has 
increased  with  the  length  of  the  ballot.  But  although  a  consider- 
able minority  of  the  voters  have  invariably  failed  to  vote  on  all 
measures  submitted,  the  fact  that  the  average  percentage  of 
votes  cast  for  measures  at  the  several  elections  has  varied  little 
with  the  number  of  measures  would,  by  itself,  indicate  that  as 
the  number  of  measures  increases  and  the  voters'  difficulties  in 


1  Oregon  Journal,  May  i,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i. 

*  Pacific  Grange  Bulletin,  vol.  5,  p.  26,  col.  2  (1912). 
*0regonian,  Nov.  19,  1912,  p.  12,  col.  2. 

•  Eugene  Register,  Oct.  31,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i. 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  123 

the  way  of  properly  considering  the  measures  are  correspondingly 
increased  the  voters  do  not  so  much  refrain  from  voting,  but 
rather  vote  "No"  in  cases  of  doubt  as  to  the  merits  of  the  in- 
dividual measures. 

10.  The  Vote  as  Protest. 

Some  voters,  in  cases  where  they  consider  that  the  system 
of  direct  legislation  is  being  abused,  on  principle  vote  in  favor  of 
referred  measures  and  against  initiated  measures,  without  regard 
to  the  merits  of  the  particular  measure.1  But  how  extensively 
this  practice  prevails  is  wholly  uncertain. 

Some  extreme  conservatives,  wholly  opposed  to  the  system 
of  direct  legislation,  openly  avow  that  they  invariably  vote  to 
support  the  legislative  assembly  in  case  of  referendum  measures, 
and  as  invariably  reject  measures  submitted  under  the  initiative. 
But  this  class  is  apparently  becoming  smaller,  and  probably 
most  of  its  members  make  the  best  of  what  they  consider  a  bad 
situation,  and  discriminate  among  the  measures  submitted  as 
other  voters  do.  This  class  has  its  opposite  extreme  in  a  class  of 
voters  supposed  to  exist,  who  reject  all  measures  coming  from  the 
legislative  assembly  and  approve  all  measures  submitted  by  ini- 
tiative petition. 

11.  The  Intelligence  of  the  Vote  in  General. 

Any  estimate  of  the  general  intelligence  of  the  voters  in  their 
actual  dealing  with  direct  legislation  is  likely  to  be  colored  very 
largely  by  mere  theoretical  considerations.  Thus,  doubtless 
the  pessimistic  view  is  induced  very  much  by  a  preconceived 
belief  that  the  people  are  incompetent  in  this  direction  — "  that 

1  "Is  not  the  voter  justified  in  voting  down  the  whole  grist,  and  thus  discouraging 
the  industry?  .  .  .  Would  it  not  be  wise  to  kill  all  of  those  bills,  good,  bad,  and 
crazy,  and  get  rid  of  the  abuse?  If  half  of  them  are  enacted,  the  rest  will  come  up 
again."  Salem  Capital  Journal,  reprinted  in  Oregonian,  Sept.  25,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 
Cf.  Oregonian,  Oct.  30,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2.  "The  way  to  rebuke  reckless  use  of  the  ini- 
tiative is  to  vote  no,  while  the  way  to  rebuke  reckless  use  of  the  referendum  is  to  vote 
yes."  Eugene  Register,  Oct.  22,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  i. 


124     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

the  people  cannot  be  trusted  with  legislative  powers  and  that  all 
legislation  must  be  done  by  proxy."  1  And  doubtless,  too,  the 
optimistic  view  is  influenced  by  a  preconceived  belief  that  the 
people  in  their  collective  capacity  are  wholly  or  nearly  infallible. 
"There  is  no  infidelity  in  the  collective  citizen  body.  Its  judg- 
ments are  sound  and  its  collective  honesty  complete.  It  has  a 
sober  sense,  rational  mental  processes  and  its  purposes  are 
exalted.  The  whole  trend  of  legislation  by  the  electorate  is  for 
social  and  economic  betterment.  If  a  people  are  given  the  means 
of  control,  instead  of  having  all  control  by  proxy,  state  govern- 
ment will  be  swiftly  purified.  It  has  been  so  under  direct  legis- 
lation in  Oregon,  and  it  will  be  so  in  any  state  that  adopts  the 
system." 2 

In  spite  of  the  difficulties  in  the  situation,  the  results  of  the 
several  elections  are,  in  general,  competent  evidence  as  to  the 
intelligence  of  the  vote  cast.  That  the  voters  have  done  remark- 
ably well  under  the  circumstances  is  generally  conceded,  even  by 
opponents  of  direct  legislation,  although  there  is  of  course  much 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  relative  merits  of  many  individual 
measures  that  have  been  approved  or  rejected  at  the  elections. 
"  On  the  whole  the  people  of  Oregon  have  exhibited  discernment 
and  intelligence  in  separating  the  good  from  the  bad  or  doubtful. 
If  direct  legislation  has  revealed  fault  it  is  not  in  the  inconsider- 
ate acts  of  the  mass  of  voters,  but  rather  in  the  selfish  or  experi- 
mental activity  of  minorities  in  holding  up  acts  of  the  legislature 
desired  by  the  people  or  in  submitting  laws  that  have  no  chance 
to  gain  the  approval  of  the  majority.  Moreover,  that  fault  is 
not  with  the  principle,  but  with  the  unguarded,  unrestricted 
manner  in  which  it  maybe  applied  and  is  possible  of  correction."3 

And  whatever  adverse  criticism  may  be  deserved  by  the  action 
of  the  voters,  it  is  believed  that  the  results  of  direct  legislation 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1907,  p.  6,  col.  3. 
J  Ibid.,  July  3,  1910,  sec.  2,  p.  4,  col.  I. 

1  Oregonian,  Nov.  13, 1913,  p.  10,  col.  2.  See  also  ibid.,  July  21,  1009,  p.  8,  col.  2 ; 
Nov.  9,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  x. 


The  Vote  in  Direct  Legislation  125 

at  least  compare  favorably  with  those  of  representative  legisla- 
tion. "Upon  all  measures  submitted  to  it,  the  electorate  of 
Oregon  has  acted  with  a  ripe  and  deliberate  wisdom  which  com- 
pares favorably  with  the  proceeding  of  the  legislature."  x  "We 
are  all  under  hallucination  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  average 
legislator.  He  has  no  monopoly  of  brains.  He  has  no  corner 
on  honesty.  He  has  no  monopoly  of  legislative  wisdom.  .  .  . 
There  is  nothing  hallowed  about  the  Oregon  legislature.  There 
is  no  halo  about  the  head  of  an  average  member.  He  is  just  a 
plain  man  and  often  a  very  common  one."  2 

1  Oregonian,  Mar.  2,  1907,  p.  8,  col.  i. 

J  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  21,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2.    See  also  especially  ibid.,  July  30, 
1913.  p.  6,  col.  2. 


CHAPTER  XII 

DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND  THE  EXECUTIVE 

IT  follows  from  a  constitutional  provision  to  the  effect  that 
"the  veto  power  of  the  governor  shall  not  extend  to  measures 
referred  to  the  people,"  1  that  the  veto  power  does  not  extend  to 
initiative  measures  or  to  measures  referred  by  the  legislature, 
but  that  the  possibility  that  measures  passed  by  the  legislature 
may  be  referred  by  petition  does  not  exempt  them  from  the 
governor's  veto.2 

Recently,  on  account  of  long  contests  in  the  legislative  as- 
sembly over  vetoed  bills,  it  has  been  suggested  that  provision 
should  be  made  for  "a  constitutional  amendment  which  will 
automatically  refer  all  vetoed  bills  direct  to  the  people  instead 
of  back  to  the  legislature,"  on  the  ground  "that  if  there  are 
sufficient  flaws  in  a  bill  to  merit  the  governor's  veto,  the  people 
of  the  state  should  be  given  the  right  and  privilege  of  sustaining 
or  rejecting  the  veto  instead  of  making  it  the  bone  of  contention 
in  a  political  fight  in  the  legislature."  3  But  under  conditions 
usually  present  in  Oregon,  this  would  add  greatly  to  the  burden 
of  the  ballot.  However,  at  times  such  a  right  for  appeal  would 
have  saved  the  necessity  of  initiating  a  measure  by  petition. 

1  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902). 

2  Kadderly  v.  Portland,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  44,  pp.  1 18,  146  (1903) ;  State  v.  Kline, 
ibid.,  vol.  50,  pp.  426,  430  (1007) ;  Oregon  v.  Pacific  Slates  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.,  ibid.,  vol. 
53,  pp.  162,  164  (1009).     Cf.  F.  Foxcroft,  Constitution-Mending  and  the  Initiative, 
Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  97,  pp.  792,  793  (1906) ;   G.  A.  Thacher,  Initiative  and  Refer- 
endum in  Oregon,  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association,  vol.  4, 
pp.  198,  202-4  (1907). 

1  Reported  in  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  2,  1913,  p.  5,  col.  5.  See  also  C.  H.  Carey, 
New  Responsibilities  of  Citizenship,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10, 
pp.  1 8,  40  (1909). 

126 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Executive         127 

It  has  been  noted  above  that  the  governor  and  other  execu- 
tive officers  of  the  state  have  assumed  the  leadership  in  the  sub- 
mission of  several  important  measures  to  the  decision  of  the 
voters.1  This  seems  to  be  but  in  keeping  with  the  general 
tendency  toward  executive  leadership  in  legislation. 

The  administration  is  further  removed  than  the  legislature 
from  the  action  of  direct  legislation,  but  doubtless  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  administration  is  affected,  for  good  or  evil,  in  some 
degree  as  in  the  case  of  the  legislature.2 

1  Above,  pp.  12-13.  8  Below,  pp.  167-70. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  DIRECT  AND  THE  REPRESENTATIVE  LEGIS- 
LATURES 


Direct  Legislation  and  Representative  Government 

"Ix  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  system  of  lawmaking  coming 
nearer  to  the  great  body  of  the  people  of  the  entire  state,  or  by 
those  composing  the  various  municipalities,  than  that  now  in 
use  here."1  But  "the  initiative  and  referendum  amendment 
does  not  abolish  or  destroy  the  republican  form  of  government, 
or  substitute  another  in  its  place.  The  representative  char- 
acter of  the  government  still  remains.  The  people  have  simply 
reserved  to  themselves  a  larger  share  of  legislative  power."  2 

However,  during  the  period  of  the  operation  of  the  system 
of  direct  legislation,  there  has  been  lack  of  confidence  in  the 
legislative  assembly,  encroachment  upon  the  functions  of  the 
assembly  by  unnecessarily  overloading  the  ballot  with  measures, 
and  even  a  desire,  on  the  part  of  some  extremists  among  the 
advocates  of  direct  legislation,  entirely  to  abolish  the  assembly 
and  place  all  responsibility  for  legislation  directly  upon  the 
people.8 

1  Kiernan  v.  Portland,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  57,  pp.  454,  472  (1910). 

*  Kadderly  v.  Portland,  ibid.,  vol.  44,  pp.  118,  145  (1903).  The  constitutionality 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum  was  upheld  in  Kadderly  v.  Portland,  ibid.,  vol.  44,  p. 
118  (1003)  and  Kiernan  v.  Portland,  ibid.,  vol.  57,  p.  454  (1910).  In  Pacific  States 
Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  v.  Oregon,  United  States  Reports,  vol.  223,  p.  118, 
Lawyers'  ed.,  vol.  56,  p.  377  (1912),  the  question  was  considered  to  be  of  a  political 
and  not  judicial  nature,  and  the  case  was  hence  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 
This  case  in  particular  aroused  an  intense  interest  in  Oregon.  *  Below,  pp.  159-61. 

128 


The  Direct  and  the  Representative  Legislatures     129 


The  Two  Legislative  Bodies 

"  By  the  adoption  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  into  our 
constitution,  the  legislative  department  of  the  state  is  divided 
into  two  separate  and  distinct  lawmaking  bodies.  There  re- 
mains, however,  as  formerly,  but  one  legislative  department 
of  the  state.  It  operates,  it  is  true,  differently  than  before  — 
one  method  by  the  enactment  of  laws  directly,  through  the 
source  of  all  legislative  power,  the  people;  and  the  other,  as 
formerly,  by  their  representatives — but  the  change  thus  wrought 
neither  gives  to  nor  takes  from  the  legislative  assembly  the 
power  to  enact  or  repeal  any  law,  except  in  such  manner  and  to 
such  extent  as  may  there  be  expressly  stated.  Nor  do  we  under- 
stand that  it  was  ever  intended  that  it  should  do  so.  The  power 
thus  reserved  to  the  people  merely  took  from  the  legislature  the 
exclusive  right  to  enact  laws,  at  the  same  time  leaving  it  a  coor- 
dinate legislative  body  with  them.  This  dual  system  of  making 
and  unmaking  laws  has  become  the  settled  policy  of  this  state, 
and  so  recognized  by  decisions  upon  the  subject.  Subject  to 
the  exceptions  enumerated  in  the  constitution  as  amended, 
either  branch  of  the  legislative  department,  whether  the  people, 
or  their  representatives,  may  enact  any  law,  and  may  even  re- 
peal any  act  passed  by  the  other."  l 

This,  it  has  been  contended,  has  brought  the  state  into  "a 
dangerous  condition,"  and  may  lead  to  the  final  abolition  of  the 
legislature.  "It  is  a  condition  similar  to  that  which  would 
occur  if  the  sole  legislative  power  of  a  state  was  composed  of  two 
houses  which  did  not  have  to  concur  to  enact  a  law,  and  each 
could  enact  laws  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  'and  even  repeal 

1  Straw  v.  Harris,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  54,  pp.  424,  430  (1009).  See  also  Hall  v. 
Dunn,  ibid.,  vol.  52,  pp.  475,  485  (1908) ;  Kiernan  v.  Portland,  ibid.,  vol.  57,  pp. 
454,  480  (1910) ;  Bradley  v.  Union  Bridge  &•  Construction  Co.,  Federal  Reporter,  vol. 
185,  pp.  544,  546  (191 1);  F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory  Results 
under  Initiative  Amendments  of  the  Oregon  Constitution,  p.  23  (1910). 
K 


130     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

any  act  passed  by  the  other.'  .  .  .  Will  not  the  legislature 
become  as  useless  as  a  vermiform  appendix  is  to  a  human  being  ? 
It  may  have  some  functions,  but  it  is  apparently  a  nuisance. 
Would  it  not  be  wise  to  cut  it  out  before  it  becomes  dangerous  ?  "  1 
But  the  serious  possibilities  of  conflict  of  the  legislature  with 
the  people  and  the  people  with  the  legislature  have  not,  as  will 
appear,2  been  realized  in  actual  experience  with  the  system. 

1 F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory  Results  under  Initiative  Amend- 
ments of  the  Oregon  Constitution,  p.  24  (1910).  *  Below,  pp.  159-66. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CHECKS    OF   THE   LEGISLATIVE   ASSEMBLY    UPON 
DIRECT  LEGISLATION 


The  Regulation  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum 

"!F  the  legislature  can  restrict,  limit  or  hamper  the  right 
of  referendum  which  the  people  have  reserved  to  themselves  in 
the  constitution,  it  practically  annuls  the  amendment.  Barrier 
after  barrier  could  be  placed  around  the  steps  necessary  to  invoke 
the  referendum,  until  there  would  be  so  many  barriers  that  they 
could  not  be  surmounted,  and  the  power  of  the  referendum 
would  be  practically  dead."  *  It  is  the  fear  of  some  such  con- 
sequence that  has  brought  the  people  generally  to  suspect  the 
efforts  made  in  the  legislative  assembly,  session  after  session, 
to  "tamper"  with  the  system,  and  members  of  the  assembly, 
whether  friends  or  enemies  of  the  system,  have  accordingly  be- 
come very  chary  of  such  movements,  which  consequently, 
whatever  their  real  merits,  have  almost  always  been  defeated. 
This  cautious  attitude  appears  in  the  governor's  message  in  1911. 
"  If  imperf ections  [in  the  Oregon  System]  exist,  these  in  time  may 
be  remedied  or  adjusted.  But  I  hold  that  if  changes  must 
come,  they  should  come  at  the  hands  of  the  friends  of  the  law, 
and  I  say  now  that  during  my  term  of  office  I  will  zealously 
guard  the  integrity  of  these  laws  of  the  people  and  will  combat 
any  attempt  to  injure,  infringe,  or  subvert  them.  The  people 
of  Oregon,  at  different  times  and  in  no  uncertain  tones,  have 
declared  for  these  laws,  and  no  men  or  no  hostile  influence  should 

1  Webster,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  July  2,  1907,  p.  4,  col.  i. 


132     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

be  permitted  to  attempt,  in  any  manner,  to  wrest  from  the  people 
their  hard- won  victory."  l 

But  two  years  later  the  governor  considered  conditions  safe 
enough  to  permit  action  by  the  assembly.  "Oregon's  system 
of  popular  government,  having  successfully  withstood  the 
attacks  of  its  enemies,  is  here  to  stay.  The  time  has  come  there- 
fore when  its  friends  should  take  steps  to  remove  such  defects 
as  a  fair  trial  has  shown  to  exist."  2  And  a  demand  for  the  im- 
provement of  the  system  is  steadily  becoming  greater.  "  Every- 
one except  the  dyed-in-the-wool  standpatters  knows  that  there 
are  defects  in  the  Oregon  System  that  ought  to  be  remedied. 
Everyone  except  these  typical  old  reactionaries  knows  that  unless 
these  defects  are  remedied  in  time  the  Oregon  System  of  popular 
government  will  lose  caste.  This  is  not  a  day  of  hide-bound 
thinking.  The  demand  of  the  times  is  for  something  better 
than  we  have,  no  matter  how  good  the  thing  we  have  may  be. 
.  .  .  The  real  friends  of  popular  government  are  not  those 
who  raise  the  long  howl  whenever  any  changes  are  suggested, 
but  rather  the  ones  who  would  apply  the  knife  to  real  and  per- 
nicious evils." 3 

However,  the  generally  prevailing  attitude  seems  still  to  be 
against  any  substantial  legislation  in  regard  to  the  system, 
whether  it  comes  from  the  legislative  assembly  or  even  from 
the  direct  action  of  the  people. 

2 

Emergency  Legislation 

The  original  constitution  of  the  state  provides :  "  No  act  shall 
take  effect  until  ninety  days  from  the  end  of  the  session  at  which 
the  same  shall  have  passed,  except  in  case  of  emergency; 

1  Message  of  Governor  West,  ign,  p.  38.  See  also  Governor's  Message,  House 
Journal,  1913,  p.  80.  *Ibid.,  1913,  p.  21. 

•Eugene  Register,  Jan.  8,  1913,  p.  4.  col.  i.  See  also  Orcgonian,  Dec.  28,  1912, 
p.  6,  col.  2 ;  Eugene  Guard,  Dec.  20,  1913,  p.  4.  col.  i. 


Checks  of  Legislature  upon  Direct  Legislation     133 

which  emergency  shall  be  declared  in  the  preamble  or  in  the 
body  of  the  law."  l  When  the  acts  of  the  legislative  assembly 
were  made  subject  to  the  referendum  in  1902,  "  laws  necessary 
for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health,  or 
safety"  were  excepted  from  this  restriction.2  Ten  years  later, 
as  a  substitute  for  a  constitutional  provision  adopted  in  1910, 
which  required  all  tax  laws  to  be  referred  to  the  voters,  an  amend- 
ment was  approved  at  the  election  prohibiting  the  legislative 
assembly  from  declaring  an  emergency  on  "any  act  regulating 
taxation  or  exemption."  3 

It  was  early  suggested  that  in  view  of  the  practice  prevailing 
before  the  initiative  and  referendum  amendment  was  adopted 
of  attaching  the  emergency  clause  to  measures  without  regard 
to  the  reality  of  the  emergency,  the  legislative  assembly  might 
be  able  to  evade  the  referendum ; 4  but  perhaps  the  prevailing 
opinion  was  to  the  effect  that  the  decision  of  the  assembly  as  to 
the  existence  of  an  emergency,  under  the  referendum  clause 
of  the  constitution,  was  not  final.5  All  doubts  about  the  legal 
power  of  the  assembly  in  this  respect  were  soon  settled  by  the 
supreme  court.  "Action  of  the  legislative  and  executive  depart- 
ments [upon  emergency  measures]  is  conclusive  and  final  so  far 
as  their  enactment  is  concerned.  No  power  is  reserved  to  the 
people  to  approve  or  disapprove  them.  They  are  not  subject  to 
the  referendum  amendment.  .  .  .  The  legislative  assembly 
may,  in  its  discretion,  put  them  into  operation  though  the 
emergency  clause  ...  or  it  may  allow  them  to  become  laws 
without  an  emergency  clause,  the  necessity  or  expediency  of 
either  course  being  a  matter  for  its  exclusive  determination. 
...  As  the  legislature  may  exercise  this  power  when  a  measure 
is  in  fact  necessary  for  the  purpose  stated,  and  as  the  amendment 
does  not  declare  what  shall  be  deemed  laws  of  the  character 


1  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  28  (1859).  l  Ibid.,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902). 

*  Ibid.,  art.  4,  sec.  ra  (1912).  *Oregonian,  Dec.  22,  1902,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

*  Governor  Chamberlain,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  May  20,  1906,  p.  20.  col.  2 ; 
June  i,  1906,  p.  3,  col.  5. 


134     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

indicated,  who  is  to  decide  whether  a  specific  act  may  or  may  not 
be  necessary  for  the  purpose?  Most  unquestionably  those 
who  make  the  laws  are  required,  in  the  process  of  their  enact- 
ment, to  pass  upon  all  questions  of  expediency  and  necessity  con- 
nected therewith,  and  must  therefore  determine  whether  a  given 
law  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health, 
and  safety.  ...  It  is  a  question  of  which  the  legislature  alone 
must  be  the  judge,  and  when  it  decides  the  fact  to  exist,  its  action 
is  final.  .  .  .  But,  it  is  argued,  what  remedy  will  the  people 
have  if  the  legislature,  either  intentionally  or  through  mistake, 
declares  falsely  or  erroneously  that  a  given  law  is  necessary  for 
the  purpose  stated?  The  obvious  answer  is  that  the  power 
has  been  vested  hi  that  body,  and  its  decision  can  no  more  be 
questioned  or  revised  than  the  decisions  of  the  highest  court 
in  a  case  over  which  it  has  jurisdiction.  Nor  shall  it  be  supposed 
that  the  legislature  will  disregard  its  duty,  or  fail  to  observe  the 
mandates  of  the  constitution.  .  .  .  If  either  of  the  departments, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  vested  in  it,  should  exercise  them 
erroneously  or  wrongfully,  the  remedy  is  with  the  people,  and 
must  be  found  ...  in  the  ballot  box."  l 

Upon  publication  of  the  court's  decision  it  was  declared  that 
the  court  had  "devitalized"  the  referendum.  "Most  bills  that 

1  Kadderly  v.  Portland,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  44,  pp.  118,  146  (1903).  See  also 
McWhirter  v.  Brainard,  ibid.,  vol.  5,  pp.  426,  429  (1875) ;  Briggs  v.  McBride,  ibid., 
vol.  17,  pp.  640,  647  (1889) ;  Dallas  v.  Hattock,  ibid.,  vol.  44,  pp.  246,  258  (1904) ; 
Sears  v.  Multnomah  County,  ibid.,  vol.  49,  pp.  42,  44  (1907) ;  State  v.  Cochran,  ibid., 
vol.  ss,  pp.  157,  194  (1909) ;  Bennett  Trust  Co.  v.  Sengstacker,  ibid.,  vol.  58,  pp.  333, 
342  (1911) ;  Reports  of  Attorney  General,  1903-4,  pp.  52-4 ;  1004-6,  pp.  137-9 ;  1906- 
8,  p.  68;  1908-10,  pp.  38-40,  57-8,  86-9.  The  same  doctrine  prevails  in  South 
Dakota  and  Arkansas.  State,  v.  Bacon,  South  Dakota  Reports,  vol.  14,  p.  394  (1901) ; 
State  v.  Moore,  Arkansas  Reports,  vol.  103,  p.  48  (1912).  Cf.  Oklahoma  City  v. 
Shields,  Oklahoma  Reports,  vol.  22,  pp.  265,  300  (1908) ;  In  re  Menefee,  ibid.,  vol. 
22,  pp.  365,  375  (1908) ;  Riley  v.  Carico,  ibid.,  vol.  27,  pp.  33,  37  (1910). 

But  in  order  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  referendum  the  assembly  must  posi- 
tively declare  that  the  act  except ed  comes  with  the  exceptions  stated  by  the  con- 
stitution. "An  emergency  is  declared,"  or  other  similar  expressions  are  not  enough. 
Sears  v.  Multnomah  County,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  49,  p.  42  (1907).  Unless  the  emer- 
gency clause  is  so  faulty  that  no  bona  fide  claim  can  be  made  as  to  its  validity,  it  is 


Checks  of  Legislature  upon  Direct  Legislation     135 

shall  be  enacted  in  the  legislature  hereafter  will  contain  emer- 
gency clauses,  whether  emergency  exists  or  not,  since  they  can 
thus  escape  referendum."  *  But,  on  the  other  hand,  to  permit 
the  courts  2  to  review  the  action  of  the  legislature  in  this  regard 
is  certainly  to  "  create  confusion  and  doubt  in  every  case  of  emer- 
gency." 3 

At  the  last  session  of  the  assembly  before  the  referendum 
amendment  went  into  effect  emergency  clauses  were  attached  to 
over  one-half  of  the  laws  which  were  passed.  At  the  first  ses- 
sion under  the  new  system  over  one-fifth  of  the  laws,  and,  at 
the  special  session  held  the  same  year,  almost  all  the  laws  passed 
were  so  affected,  as  in  the  previous  sessions,  generally  without 
any  regard  as  to  whether  actual  emergency  existed  or  not.  Thus 
was  produced  "the  situation  of  a  representative  legislature  fore- 
stalling and  preventing  the  hostile  action  of  the  popular  legis- 
lature operating  by  means  of  the  referendum."  4  The  emer- 
gency clause  seems  not  to  have  been  discussed  at  these  sessions,5 
but  the  sudden  reduction  of  the  proportion  of  emergency  meas- 
ures of  the  regular  session  as  compared  with  that  of  the  preceding 
regular  session  must  have  some  significance  in  this  connection. 
When  at  the  session  of  1905  it  appeared  that  the  abuse  of  the 
emergency  clause  would  nullify  the  people's  power  of  refer- 
endum to  a  great  extent,6  Governor  Chamberlain  interfered, 

presumed  to  be  valid  and  must  be  so  treated  by  officials  until  decided  otherwise  by 
the  courts.  Report  of  Attorney  General,  1908-10,  pp.  57-8.  For  an  example  of  an 
emergency  clause,  see  below,  p.  140.  1  Oregonian,  Dec.  27,  1903,  p.  16,  col.  i. 

2  Permitted  in  McClure  v.  Nye,  California  Appeals  Reports,  vol.  22,  p.  248  (1913) ; 
Attorney  General  v.  Lindsay,  Michigan  Reports,  vol.  178,  p.  524;    State  v.  Meath, 
Pacific  Reporter  (Washington),  vol.  147,  p.  n  (1915).     Cf.  Oregon  Journal,  Mar.  8, 
1915,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

3  Dissenting  opinion,  State  v.  Meath,  Pacific  Reporter  (Washington),  vol.  147, 
pp.  u,  19  (1915).     Cf.  Oregonian,  Mar.  8,  1915,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

4  G.  H.  Burnett,  Recent  Legislation,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association, 
1904-6,  pp.  17,  24  (1904). 

*  Cf.  Governor  Chamberlain,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  May  20, 1906,  p.  20,  col.  2 ; 
June  i,  1006,  p.  3,  col.  5. 

•  Cf.  especially  Oregon  Journal,  May  17,  1006,  p.  3,  col.  i ;   Oct.  13,  1910,  p.  8, 
col.  i. 


136     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

and  threatened  to  veto  every  bill  to  which  an  emergency 
clause  was  attached  unless  it  was  clearly  apparent  that  an  imme- 
diate emergency  was  actually  present. 

A  very  strict  doctrine  regarding  the  use  of  the  emergency 
clause  is  contained  in  the  governor's  message.  "The  plain 
intent  of  this  reserve  power  was  to  enable  the  people  of  the 
state  to  have  referred  to  them  directly  for  their  approval  or  re- 
jection any  act  of  the  legislature  which  in  the  opinion  of  at  least 
five  per  cent  of  the  legal  voters  should  not  find  permanent  lodge- 
ment on  the  statute  books  of  the  state,  except  as  to  laws  neces- 
sary for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health, 
or  safety. 

"The  supreme  court  of  this  state  has  held  that  it  is  the  legisla- 
tive province  to  declare  in  an  emergency  clause  what  acts  are 
necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace, 
health,  or  safety,  and  in  the  exercise  of  this  power  it  seems  to  me 
great  care  should  be  used  by  the  legislature  to  avoid  attaching 
an  emergency  clause  to  any  bill  which  is  not  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  public  peace,  health, 
or  safety  of  our  people. 

"My  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  many,  if  not 
a  majority  of  the  bills  which  have  been  introduced  in  both  the 
house  and  senate  have  an  emergency  clause  declaring  such  bills 
to  be  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health, 
and  safety  of  the  people,  thus,  in  effect,  cutting  off  the  right  to 
have  such  laws  referred  to  the  people.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no 
law  can  have  for  its  object  the  immediate  preservation  of  the 
public  peace,  unless  it  be  to  prevent  invasion,  insurrection,  or 
war ;  no  law  can  have  for  its  object  the  immediate  preservation 
of  the  public  health,  unless  it  be  to  prevent  the  introduction  of 
some  plague  or  the  spread  of  some  contagious  or  infectious  dis- 
ease ;  and  no  law  can  have  for  its  object  the  immediate  preserva- 
tion of  the  public  safety  unless  it  be  to  prevent  riot  or  mob  vio- 
lence, or  something  calculated  to  bring  about  great  destruction 
to  life  or  property. 


Checks  of  Legislature  upon  Direct  Legislation     137 

"I  am  bound  by  the  same  oath  of  office  as  you  and  other 
officers  of  the  state  to  support  the  constitution  in  letter  and 
spirit,  as  I  understand  it,  and  following  the  construction  hereto- 
fore given  by  the  courts  and  the  people  to  constitutional  provi- 
sions like  the  one  under  consideration,  I  shall  feel  it  to  be  my 
duty  to  refuse  to  give  my  assent  to  any  act  containing  the  emer- 
gency clause  referred  to  unless  it  is  clearly  apparent  that  the 
emergency  is  immediate  within  the  letter  and  spirit  of  this 
amendment  to  the  constitution.  The  people  of  the  state  should 
have  the  right  to  avail  themselves  of  the  referendum  clause  in 
the  constitution  in  all  cases  except  those  clearly  intended  to  be 
embraced  within  the  exceptions  quoted."  l 

The  governor's  attitude  dampened  the  ardor  of  the  emergency- 
makers.  In  some  cases  emergency  clauses  were  struck  out  of 
bills.  In  some  cases,  where  the  clause  was  objectionable  to  the 
governor,  he  vetoed  the  bill,  and  his  vetoes  were  sustained. 
But,  nevertheless,  even  a  greater  proportion  of  bills  with 
emergency  clauses  became  laws  than  at  the  previous  session  — 
nearly  one-fourth  of  all  the  laws  passed.  And  in  many  cases, 
of  course,  actual  emergency  was  not  present.  In  many  cases 
emergency  was  not  evident  from  a  point  of  view  much  less  severe 
than  that  announced  in  the  governor's  message.  In  strict  ac- 
cordance with  that  doctrine  a  real  emergency  will  almost  never 
arise.  But  neither  Governor  Chamberlain  acted,  nor  have  his 
successors  acted  in  strict  accord  with  that  doctrine.  Indeed, 
although  it  seems  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  intent  of  the  con- 
stitution, the  doctrine  is  too  strict  for  practical  purposes.  How- 
ever, the  conflict  between  Governor  Chamberlain  and  the  legis- 
lative assembly  doubtless  had  much  to  do  with  the  development 
of  a  strong  public  sentiment  against  the  abuse  of  the  emergency 
clause,  and  to  the  rapid  decrease  of  that  abuse  by  the  legislative 
assembly.2 

1  Governor  Chamberlain's  Message,  House  Journal,  1905,  p.  210.  Cf.  Oregonian, 
Jan.  28,  1915,  p.  10,  col.  2. 

1  Cf.  Oregon  Journal,  May  22,  1008,  p.  19,  col.  6. 


138     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

At  the  session  of  1907  fewer  emergency  clauses  appeared,  and 
only  one-tenth  of  the  laws  finally  enacted  carried  such  clauses. 
At  the  next  session  the  proportion  was  still  further  reduced,  and 
at  the  sessions  of  1911  and  1913  not  one- twentieth  of  the  laws 
were  passed  with  emergency  clauses  attached.1  The  large 
increase  in  the  proportion  of  emergency  laws  at  the  session  of 
1915,  to  nearly  one-fifth  of  the  whole  number  of  laws  passed,  was 
due,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
measures  of  the  class  to  which  emergency  clauses  are  now  most 
frequently  attached  —  appropriation  acts,  chiefly  those  for  the 
ordinary  expenses  of  the  state  government  —  resulting  from  the 
policy  of  grouping  fewer  items  in  a  single  measure  than  had  been 
customary  in  the  past. 

Public  opinion  in  the  state  condemns  the  use  of  the  emergency 
clause  except  for  good  reasons.  "Legislators  must  not  trample  on 
the  referendum.  The  legislature  has  no  right  to  indiscriminately 
use  the  emergency  clause.  When  that  clause  is  attached  to 
measures  which  are  not  required  by  any  actual  emergency,  both 
the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  organic  law  are  violated.  .  .  .  Emer- 
gency has  a  meaning  that  is  patent  to  every  legislator,  and  one  so 
plain  that  it  cannot  be  misunderstood  or  misconstrued."  2  Five 
candidates  for  the  office  of  governor  in  1914  promised  in  case  of 

1  The  unnecessary  use  of  the  emergency  clause  in  an  act  containing  provisions 
rejected  by  the  voters  at  the  election  adds  insult  to  injury.  An  amendment  includ- 
ing, in  addition  to  radical  changes  in  the  judiciary  department,  a  provision  for  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  was  rejected  by  the  people 
in  igo8 ;  but  at  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  a  bill  was  passed  providing  for  the 
increase  and  an  emergency  clause  was  attached.  "Does  an  emergency  exist?  Is 
there  any  acute  crisis  in  our  judicial  affairs  that  justifies  all  this  haste?  There  is 
not,  of  course.  The '  crisis '  and  the '  emergency '  are  the  people  of  Oregon,  who  voted 
down  the  same  scheme  last  June,  and  will  do  it  again  if  they  have  the  opportunity. 
.  .  .  But  they  are  not  to  have  the  opportunity."  Oregonian,  Feb.  n,  1009,  p.  8, 
col.  2. 

Members  of  the  legislative  assembly  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  the  emergency 
clause  of  course  are  not  generally  as  outspoken  as  the  member  of  the  house  who  ob- 
jected to  taking  the  clause  from  his  bill  "for  fear  that  the  voters  of  Oregon  would 
defeat  the  bill  under  the  referendum."  Oregonian,  Feb.  u,  1909,  p.  i,  col.  7. 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1909,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


Checks  of  Legislature  upon  Direct  Legislation     139 

election  to  use  the  veto  power  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  the  emer- 
gency clause.1 

A  consideration  of  the  emergency  measures  of  the  session  of 
1915  will  indicate  the  present  attitude  of  the  legislature  in  this 
regard. 

A  motive  for  the  attachment  of  the  emergency  clause  to  the 
cession  of  jurisdiction  over  a  park  to  the  general  government 
was  to  secure  federal  appropriations  for  the  park  for  the  present 
year.  Without  the  emergency  clause  the  two  acts  repealing 
provisions  for  the  state  census  would  not  have  gone  into  effect 
until  after  the  taking  of  the  census  had  begun.  The  provision 
for  removing  from  the  registration  records  the  names  of  persons 
not  citizens  of  the  United  States  (recently  disfranchised  by  con- 
stitutional amendment)  was  made  effective  immediately  in  order 
to  put  the  records  into  proper  condition  for  the  early  elections. 
The  law  regulating  fishing  in  the  waters  over  which  the  states  of 
Oregon  and  Washington  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  was  passed 
under  an  agreement  with  the  legislature  of  Washington  for  the 
enactment  of  identical  legislation,  and  hence  delay  to  give  oppor- 
tunity for  the  referendum  in  this  case  was  hardly  practicable. 
The  provision  for  a  special  election  for  referendum  measures  to 
be  held  in  case  any  such  measures  should  be  filed  would  have  of 
course  been  useless  without  the  emergency  clause.  The  imme- 
diate operation  of  the  act  relating  to  bounties  for  killing  wolves, 
etc.,  was  required  as  an  aid  in  checking  the  spread  of  rabies  in 
certain  parts  of  the  state.  The  amendment  in  reference  to  com- 
mitments to  a  reform  schoolwas  badly  needed  to  cure  an  accident 

1  "It  is  my  earnest  belief,  and  will  be  my  policy  if  I  am  elected  governor,  that  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  the  constitution  should  be  followed  faithfully  and  fully  and  that  the 
emergency  clause  must  not  be  used  '  except  as  to  laws  necessary  for  the  immediate 
preservation  of  the  public  peace,  health  or  safety.'  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  ...  it 
is  the  unalterable  duty  of  the  chief  executive  to  disapprove  of  the  emergency  clause 
when  the  actual  emergency  existing  does  not  measure  up  to  the  meaning  of  the  con- 
stitution in  the  fullest  degree.  I  assuredly  will  disapprove  the  use  of  the  emergency 
clause  as  a  means  of  evading  the  operation  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  provi- 
sions." James  Withycombe  (elected),  Oregon  Grange  BitUelin,  Nov.  1914,  p.  i.  See 
statements  of  the  other  candidates,  ibid. 


140     Initiative,   Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

in  the  law  which  prevented  any  commitment  of  a  certain  class  of 
delinquents.  The  publication  of  the  session  laws,  etc.,  would 
have  been  deferred  very  late  if  the  provision  for  their  publication 
had  been  delayed  to  give  opportunity  for  a  referendum. 

None  of  the  several  acts  permitting  cities  to  manage  water- 
works jointly,  regulating  the  merger  of  adjacent  cities,  changing 
the  time  of  holding  the  circuit  court  in  a  certain  district,  author- 
izing cities  to  acquire  grounds  from  cemetery  associations,  etc., 
authorizing  counties  to  form  joint  road  districts,  relating  to  bids 
on  public  work,  relating  to  public  printing,  changing  the  admin- 
istration of  a  state  irrigation  project,  was  so  urgently  needed  that 
the  delay  to  allow  opportunity  for  a  referendum  would  have 
caused  very  serious  inconvenience.  However,  although  the 
attachment  of  the  emergency  clause  was  severely  criticized  in 
some  cases,  it  is  not  probable  that  there  was  any  desire  to 
invoke  the  referendum  on  any  of  these  acts. 

But  the  act  confirming  the  lease  of  certain  state  salt  beds  met 
opposition,  and  probably  one  motive  for  the  attachment  of  the 
emergency  clause  was  to  escape  the  risk  of  a  referendum.  This 
was  doubtless  the  chief  motive  for  declaring  an  emergency  in 
case  of  the  act  creating  a  new  judicial  district.  In  case  of  the 
law  submitting  appointive  officers  to  the  unqualified  power  of 
removal  by  the  appointing  authority,  it  was  frankly  admitted 
that  the  purpose  of  the  emergency  clause  was  to  prevent  the 
referendum  of  the  law  by  those  persons  whose  positions  were 
endangered  by  the  law. 

Two-thirds  of  the  emergency  measures,  forty-four  out  of  the 
sixty-four,  were  appropriation  acts,  but  most  of  these  were  for 
the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  state  government.1 

1  The  customary  form  of  emergency  clause  attached  to  such  an  appropriation  act 
reads  as  follows:  "It  is  hereby  adjudged  and  declared  that  existing  conditions  are 
such  that  this  act  is  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace, 
health  and  safety,  and,  owing  to  the  urgent  necessity  of  maintaining  the  public 
credit,  an  emergency  is  hereby  declared  to  exist,  and  this  act  shall  take  effect  and  be 
in  full  force  from  and  after  its  approval  by  the  governor."  Laws,  1915,  ch.  301.  sec. 
3.  For  the  view  that  the  emergency  clause  may  properly  be  attached  to  such  acts 


Checks  of  Legislature  upon  Direct  Legislation     141 

Other  measures  of  the  session  in  their  original  form  contained 
emergency  clauses,  but  the  clauses  were  removed  before  enact- 
ment, in  some  cases  at  the  instance  of  the  governor. 

Numbers  of  appropriation  acts  are  thus  withdrawn  from  the 
referendum  by  the  use  of  the  emergency  clause  at  every  session 
of  the  legislature.  In  case  of  appropriations  for  the  ordinary 
expenses  of  the  state  government  the  inconvenience  caused  by 
waiting  for  the  referendum  period  of  ninety  days  to  expire  be- 
comes serious  hardship  when  the  referendum  is  actually  invoked.1 
But  generally  very  large  increases  over  the  ordinary  expenses  of 
government  have  also  been  protected  against  the  referendum  by 
the  attachment  of  the  emergency  clause. 

Under  present  conditions  it  is  true  that  "a  weak-kneed  gov- 
ernor and  an  unscrupulous  legislature  with  a  big  working  major- 
ity might  render  the  referendum  useless  "  by  the  abuse  of  emer- 
gency legislation.2  But  in  case  of  abuse  of  the  emergency  clause, 
of  course  the  people  can  resort  to  the  initiative  and  thus  undo 
what  the  legislature  has  done;  and  this  has  been  threatened.3 
Further  a  too  liberal  use  of  the  clause  "  may  provoke  the  popular 
legislature  to  retort  by  labeling  its  legislation  'constitutional 
amendments,'  and  thus  effectively  prevent  any  change  by  the 
legislative  assembly."  4 

On  account  of  the  abuse  of  the  emergency  clause  there  has  been 
some  movement  to  safeguard  it  with  positive  restrictions.  The 
exemption  of  tax-measures  from  emergency  legislation  by  a  con- 
stituted amendment  in  191 2 6  was  merely  a  substitute  for  the 
obligatory  referendum  on  such  measures.  Among  the  numer- 

see  Governor's  Message,  Senate  Journal,  1905,  p.  1037.  Contra,  Governor's  Mes- 
sage, House  Journal,  1913,  p.  1106.  In  several  states  such  appropriations  are  ex- 
cepted  from  the  power  of  referendum.  E.g.,  California  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i 
(1911);  Washington  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  i(b)  (1912). 

1  Report  of  Secretary  of  State,  1004-6,  pp.  170-19  a. 

*  G.  A.  Thacher,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Proceedings  of  the  American 
Political  Science  Association,  vol.  4,  pp.  198,  204  (1907). 

*0regonian,  Feb.  n,  1909,  p.  r,  col.  7;  Feb.  12,  1909,  p.  10,  col.  3. 

4  G.  H.  Burnett,  Recent  Legislation,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association, 
1904-6,  pp.  17,  24  (1904).  *  Above,  p.  133. 


142     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

ous  provisions  for  the  reorganization  of  the  legislative  depart- 
ment in  the  amendments  submitted  in  1910  and  1912  there  were 
provisions  exempting  other  subjects  from  the  operation  of  the 
emergency  clause  and  requiring  a  three-fourths  vote  to  declare 
an  emergency.  It  was  further  provided  that  although  emer- 
gency legislation  passed  by  such  vote  should  immediately  go  into 
effect,  if  a  referendum  petition  should  be  filed  against  the  law 
and  the  law  be  rejected  at  the  election,  it  should  thereby  be  re- 
pealed.1 This  meritorious  amendment  might  have  been  ap- 
proved if  it  had  been  submitted  to  the  people  by  itself.2 

It  has  even  been  suggested  that  the  constitution  might  be 
amended  to  take  away  from  the  legislative  assembly  all  power 
of  declaring  emergencies.3  As  above  noted,4  acts  regulating 
taxation  or  exemption  from  taxation  may  no  longer  be  withdrawn 
from  the  power  of  the  referendum,  and  it  seems  probable  that  the 
continued  complaint  of  the  extravagance  of  the  legislative  as- 
sembly may  result  in  a  popular  demand  for  some  restriction  of  the 
use  of  the  emergency  clause  in  the  appropriation  of  public 
money.5  The  freedom  of  the  use  of  the  emergency  clause  needs, 

1  Referendum  Pamphlet,  igio,  no.  360,  sec.  ic,  p.  187;  1912,  no.  362,  sec.  ic, 
p.  210;  below,  p.  256. 

"No  such  emergency  measure  shall  be  considered  passed  by  the  legislature  unless 
it  shall  ...  be  approved  by  the  affirmative  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  house  of  the  legislature  .  .  .  and  also  approved  by  the  governor ; 
and  should  such  measure  be  vetoed  by  the  governor,  it  shall  not  become  law  unless 
approved  by  the  votes  of  three-fourths  of  the  members  elected  to  each  house  of  the 
legislature."  Arizona  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1911).  "An  emergency  law  shall 
remain  in  force  notwithstanding  such  petition,  but  shall  be  repealed  thirty  days 
after  being  rejected  by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  electors  voting  thereon.  An  emer- 
gency law  shall  be  any  law  declared  by  the  legislature  to  be  necessary  for  any  imme- 
diate purpose  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  members  of  each  house  voting  thereon." 
Proposed  Wisconsin  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i,  rejected  (1914)-  A  separate  vote  on 
the  emergency  clause  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  members  of  each  house  has  been 
proposed  for  the  enactment  of  an  emergency  law.  Proposed  Minnesota  Constitu- 
tion, art.  4,  sec.  ic,  rejected  (1914). 

»  Cf.  C.  N.  McArthur,  Oregonian,  Mar.  6,  1907,  sec.  5,  p.  n  ;  Labor  Press,  Aug.  i, 
1912,  p.  4,  col.  2. 

1  Reported  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  23,  1903,  p.  16,  col.  i ;  Dec.  27,  1903,  p.  16,  col.  i. 
See  also  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  27,  1914,  p.  4,  col.  2.  *  P.  141. 

*  Cf.  A.  D.  Cridge,  Oregon  Journal,  Mar.  8,  1913,  p.  4.  col.  4. 


Checks  of  Legislature  upon  Direct  Legislation     143 

at  least  in  the  case  of  increase  of  expenditure,  constitutional  limi- 
tations.1 

Abuses  of  the  referendum  encouraged  by  the  laxity  of  the  sys- 
tem of  petition  making  have  at  times  led  to  advocacy  of  the 
attachment  of  the  emergency  clause  to  defeat  the  abuses.  "If 
the  people  of  Oregon,  or  their  representatives  in  the  legislature, 
refuse  or  neglect  to  put  proper  safeguards  around  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  the  legislature  will  be  justified  in  adding  an 
emergency  clause  to  every  bill  upon  which  there  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve a  referendum  may  be  invoked."  2 

The  delay  of  legislation  caused  by  the  operation  of  the  referen- 
dum is  a  really  serious  matter.  Under  the  present  system 
legislation  for  which  there  is  a  wide  popular  demand  may  be 
held  up  for  nearly  two  years.  Three  times  the  assembly  has 
called  special  elections,  wholly  for  decision  upon  measures  re- 
ferred by  petition,3  in  order  to  lessen  this  difficulty.  This  policy 
of  course  causes  additional  expense  to  the  state,  but  this  is  far 
more  than  balanced  by  the  lessening  of  delay  and  by  the  re- 
duction of  the  length  of  the  ballot.  It  would  be  well  either  to 

1  "No  law  making  any  appropriation  for  maintaining  the  state  government  or 
maintaining  or  aiding  any  public  institution,  not  exceeding  the  next  previous  ap- 
propriation for  the  same  purpose,  shall  be  subject  to  rejection  or  approval  under  this 
section.  The  increase  in  any  such  appropriation  shall  only  take  effect  as  in  the  case 
of  other  laws,  and  such  increase,  or  any  part  thereof,  specified  in  the  petition  may  be 
referred  to  a  vote  of  the  people  upon  petition."  Proposed  Wisconsin  Constitution, 
art.  4,  sec.  i,  rejected  (1014).  See  also  California  Constitution,  art.  17,  sec.  2  (1911). 

"Whereas  the  'emergency  clause'  in  the  referendum  law,  as  the  law  now  stands, 
is  liable  to  be  improperly  used ;  therefore  be  it  resolved  by  this  Grange,  that  we  urge 
our  senators  and  representatives  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  law  that  will  confine  the 
use  of  the '  emergency  clause '  to  cases  in  which  the  public  peace  or  safety  is  in  danger." 
Resolution  of  Clackamas  County  Grange,  Senate  Journal,  1905,  p.  330. 

*Oregonian,  July  23,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

8  "This,  I  think,  bad,  as  a  hostile  legislature  could  thus,  by  selecting  an  adverse 
time,  hamper  the  measure  proposed,  etc.  It's  none  of  their  business.  They,  of  all 
others,  should  be  required  to  keep  their  hands  off.  And  as  real  emergency  matters 
ought  to  be  excepted,  there  is  no  objection  to  waiting  till  the  next  general  election. 
This  will  give  more  time  for  the  discussion,  and  there  will  be  a  full  vote."  R.  B. 
Minor,  Oregon  Law  Criticized,  Equity,  vol.  9,  p.  9  (1007). 

The  constitutionality  of  such  special  elections  has  been  established.  Equi  v.  Okott, 
Oregon  Reports,  vol.  66,  p.  213  (1913) ;  Libby  v.  Okott,  ibid.,  vol.  66,  p.  124  (1913). 


144     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

make  a  permanent  provision  for  special  elections  for  the  pur- 
pose within  a  reasonable  period  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
assembly,1  or  to  change  the  time  for  the  sessions  of  the  assembly 
so  that  they  will  come  in  the  same  years  as  the  general  election.2 

3 

The  Division  of  Legislative  Measures 

In  order  to  discourage  the  use  of  the  referendum,  it  is  charged, 
the  legislative  assembly  in  some  cases  has  distributed  matter 
naturally  covered  by  one  act  among  several  acts,  and  thus  ren- 
dered petition  making  more  difficult.3  An  act  may  be  thus  di- 
vided also  with  the  hope  that,  should  the  several  acts  be  referred, 
some  of  them  will  be  approved  though  some  may  be  rejected. 

1  Cf.  especially  Oregonian,  Nov.  2,  1913,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  i ;  Jan.  16,  1915,  p.  8, 
col.  3. 

*  Cf.  Eugene  Register,  June  i,  1913,  p.  12,  col.  i;  report  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  20, 
1915,  p.  4,  col.  3.  *  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Equity,  vol.  15,  p.  129  (1913). 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  AMENDMENT  AND  REPEAL  OF  DIRECT  LEG- 
ISLATION BY  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY 

"ARE  any  and  all  acts  by  the  people  in  whom  sovereign  power 
resides  liable  to  be  turned  down  by  legislators  who  are  mere 
representatives?"1  The  constitution  is  silent  in  the  matter, 
but  the  supreme  court  has  answered  in  the  affirmative.  "Our 
legislature  .  .  .  can,  if  it  chooses,  repeal  all  the  laws  (not  in- 
cluded in  constitutional  amendments)  enacted  at  the  .  .  . 
election."  2  And  likewise  the  legislature  may  legally  enact  any 
laws  previously  rejected  by  the  people.3  "  If  the  people  intended 
by  the  initiative  or  referendum  to  take  from  the  legislature  its 
power  to  legislate,  why  did  they  provide  precisely  the  same 
method  for  popular  enactment  of  a  constitutional  amendment 
and  a  statutory  law  ?  Yet  the  clear  distinction  is :  In  the  one 
case  there  is  specific  inhibition  upon  legislative  interference ;  in 
the  other,  the  way  is  intentionally  left  open  for  legislative  amend- 
ment, revision  or  repeal."  4  In  fact  it  was  clearly  the  intention 
of  the  promoters  of  the  direct  legislative  movement  to  leave  such 
powers  with  the  legislative  assembly.8  But  from  the  very  first 
there  has  been  a  feeling  of  "delicacy  in  dealing  with  a  law  placed 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  12,  1911,  sec.  2,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

J  Kiernan  v.  Portland,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  57,  pp.  454,  480  (1910).  See  also  Kad- 
derly  v.  Portland,  ibid.,  vol.  44,  pp.  118,  146  (1003) ;  State  v.  Schuler,  ibid.,  vol.  59, 
pp.  18,  26  (1910).  Cf.  above,  pp.  129-30. 

3  Slate  v.  Cochran,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  55,  pp.  157,  195  (1909). 

*  Oregonian,  Dec.  3,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

e  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregonian,  Feb.  9, 1913,  sec.  3,  p.  4,  col.  4 ;  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in 
Oregonian,  July  9, 1904,  p.  6,  col.  i ;  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  6, 1913,  p.  5,  col.  2.  There 
was  at  least  some  contemporary  opinion  to  the  contrary.  Oregonian,  Dec.  27,  1903, 
p.  16,  col.  2. 

L  145 


146     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

on  the  statute  books  through  the  initiative  and  referendum."  : 
Logical  consistency  demands  that  action  by  the  legislative  as- 
sembly should  be  regarded  as  an  interference  with  the  popular 
will  as  much  in  the  case  of  referendum  measures  as  in  the  case  of 
initiative  measures  adopted  at  the  polls,  and  that  negative 
majorities  at  the  election  should  be  regarded  as  much  an  instruc- 
tion to  the  assembly  as  positive  majorities.  In  fact,  positive  and 
negative  majorities  have  been  placed  about  on  a  par  in  this  re- 
gard, but  there  has  always  been  greater  jealousy  of  interference 
with  initiative  than  with  referendum  measures. 

The  proper  attitude  of  the  legislative  assembly  toward  ques- 
tions once  decided  at  the  polls  is  the  subject  of  doctrines  which 
vary  all  the  way  from  the  doctrine  of  absolute  non-interference 
to  the  repudiation  of  the  notion  of  the  peculiar  "sanctity"  of 
direct  legislation. 

"I  do  not  believe  the  legislature  should  amend  any  law  that 
has  been  adopted  by  the  people  by  the  initiative."2  "If  an 
error  has  been  made  [by  the  people]  let  the  people  .  .  .  correct 
it."  3  "As  to  measures  that  have  been  enacted  by  the  voters,  I 
shall  oppose  any  changes  except  those  that  are  clearly  intended 
to  aid  the  operation  of  the  bill  and  make  it  more  effective.  As 
to  measures  rejected  by  the  voters,  I  shall  oppose  their  enact- 
ment by  the  legislature,  and  use  the  veto  power  on  such  measures 
if  necessary."  4  Although  there  is  opinion  which  favors  the  re- 
submission  of  a  matter  once  determined  by  the  people  as  an  al- 
ternative to  direct  interference  by  the  legislature,6  such  resub- 
mission  has  been  opposed  as  "  tampering  with  the  laws  of  the 
people." 6 

1  Quoted  in  Oregonian,  July  6,  1904,  p.  6,  col.  5. 

*  M.  A.  Miller,  senate,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  7,  1007,  p.  10,  col.  3. 

1 J.  A.  Westerlund,  house  of  representatives,  Eugene  Register,  Feb.  10,  1911,  p.  i, 
col.  i. 

4  W.  S.  U'Ren  (candidate  for  governor),  Oregon  Grange  Bulletin,  Nov.,  1914,  p.  i. 
1  E.g.,  Governor's  Message,  Senate  Journal,  1913,  p.  1036. 

•  Debate  in  senate,  Oregonian,  Jan.  30,  1913,  p.  7,  col.  i ;  Eugene  Register,  Feb.  8, 
1913,  p.  i,  col.  7;   Eugene  Guard,  Feb.  8,  1913,  p.  13,  col.  i. 

Friends  of  the  bill  "  contend  that  the  moral  conditions  supersede  any  sentimental 


Amendment  and  Repeal  of  Direct  Legislation     147 

More  moderate  views  are  thus  expressed.  "I  believe  [the] 
.  .  .  wishes  [of  the  people]  expressed  at  the  ballot  box  should 
remain  inviolate  until  changed  by  them,  except  only  in  case  of 
some  great  .  .  .  emergency.  I  have  always  .  .  .  opposed 
any  material  change  in  the  people's  laws."1  "If  there  is  to  be 
important  change  in  the  primary  law,  it  should  be  made  by  the 
people."  2  Views  shade  off  until  there  is  no  distinction  made  in 
this  respect  between  direct  and  ordinary  legislation.  "Some- 
times the  people  make  mistakes.  .  .  .  When  the  initiative  was 
introduced  that  idea  was  carefully  considered,  and  we  thought 
that  it  might  transpire  that  the  people  would  enact  laws  with 
defects  that  would  need  to  be  remedied.  They  might  make  a 
serious  mistake  in  passing  a  bill,  and  I  do  not  see  why  the  legis- 
lature should  not  change  it.  It  has  been  said,  somewhere,  that 
man  is  prone  to  err,  and  the  most  of  us  do,  sometimes."  3  "The 
legislature  has  its  place  in  the  political  economy  of  the  common- 
wealth and  it  is  clearly  its  duty  to  correct  errors  in  legislation, 
whatever  the  source  of  that  legislation  may  be.  All  that  is 
needed  is  to  learn  the  lesson  of  experience,  and  to  act  honestly 
and  courageously  thereon ;  the  people  will  sustain  such  action."  4 
"If  the  people  have  been  misinformed,  or  if  time  shows  that 
they  have  made  a  mistake,  or  if  the  issue  has  not  been  presented 
to  them  in  fair  and  simple  terms,  or  if  it  be  apparent  that  the 
people  in  defeating  a  measure  preferred  that  the  legislature 

regard  for  an  amendment  passed  by  the  people."  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  21,  1913, 
p.  i,  col.  2.  Further,  it  has  been  urged  that  when  at  an  election  voters  have  been 
mistaken  as  to  the  nature  of  a  measure  submitted,  it  is  proper  thus  to  allow  them  a 
resubmission  of  the  question  to  correct  their  error.  And  when  the  suffrage  was  ex- 
tended to  women  it  was  contended  that  the  "home-rule"  liquor  amendment  and 
the  anti-capital-punishment  bill  should  be  resubmitted  because  they  had  not  been 
passed  upon  by  all  the  electorate. 

1 J.  A.  Carson  and  Jay  Bowerman,  Senate  Journal,  ign,  p.  65. 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  23,  ign,  p.  8,  col.  i.  See  also  Governor's  Message,  Senate 
Journal,  1913,  p.  1036. 

1 W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal,  July  6,  1913,  p.  5,  col.  2.  But  see  above, 
p.  146,  note  4.  See  also  W.  S.  U'Ren,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  July  9,  1904,  p.  6,  col.  i ; 
letter  in  Oregonian,  Feb.  g,  1913,  sec.  3,  p.  4,  col.  4;  F.  M.  Gill,  Oregonian,  Feb.  16, 
ign,  p.  10,  col.  5.  4  S.  A.  Lowell,  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  29,  1912,  p.  18,  col.  4. 


148     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

should  handle  the  problem  that  particular  bill  presents,  or  if  it 
appears  that  a  popular  law  can  be  improved  —  in  these  events 
.  .  .  the  legislature  is  justified  in  amending  'people's  laws'  or 
enacting  measures  the  people  have  disapproved."  :  Of  course 
no  one  contends  that  the  legislature  has  any  "moral  right  to 
interfere  wantonly  with  the  people's  laws,  or  any  other  laws."  2 

Even  assuming  that  the  voters  generally  make  no  mistakes  at 
the  election,  majorities  do  not  necessarily  in  all  cases  indicate 
public  opinion  either  upon  individual  measures  or  upon  the 
several  provisions  contained  in  some  individual  measures.  For 
so  far  as  the  defeat  of  measures  is  due  to  negative  votes  cast  as  a 
protest  against  the  submission  of  such  measures,  or  is  due  to  the 
habit  of  voting  "no"  on  propositions  not  fully  understood,  the 
popular  vote  is  no  instruction  whatever  to  the  people's  repre- 
sentatives. Further,  when  defeat  is  due  to  the  presence  of 
conflicting  measures  on  the  same  ballot,  it  is  difficult  if  not  im- 
possible for  the  legislature  to  obtain  any  guidance  for  action  from 
the  vote.  Moreover,  in  the  case  of  negative  majorities  it  is 
generally  impossible  to  be  at  all  certain  as  to  whether  a  measure 
has  been  rejected  because  all  of  its  provisions  were  objectionable 
to  the  voters,  or  whether  the  voters  objected  only  to  one  or  more 
of  the  provisions.  And  a  positive  majority  does  not  necessarily 
indicate  the  popular  will  as  to  the  whole  of  a  measure  adopted  at 
the  polls.  For  the  measure  may  have  been  adopted  in  spite  of  in- 
dividual provisions  obnoxious  to  most  of  the  voters,  or  some  pro- 
visions may  have  been  entirely  unknown  to  most  of  the  voters. 

It  would  seem  that  direct  legislation  has  not  been  in  opera- 
tion here  long  enough  to  have  allowed  the  development  of  a  com- 
promise theory  admitting  the  "  rigidity"  of  direct  legislation,  but 
limiting  the  duration  of  that  "rigidity"  to  a  reasonable  length  of 
time. 

1  Oregonian,  Mar.  3,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  2.  See  also  ibid.,  May  3,  1004,  p.  6,  col.  3; 
Feb.  25,  191 1,  p.  8,  col.  3.  It  has  been  observed  that  the  solution  of  some  legislative 
problems,  as  in  the  case  of  agreement  with  other  states  upon  needed  uniformity  of 
laws,  may  necessitate  the  legislature's  revision  of  direct  legislation.  Oregonian, 
Sept.  14,  1911,  p.  12,  col.  i.  *  Oregonian,  Feb.  17,  1911,  p.  10.  col.  2. 


Amendment  and  Repeal  of  Direct  Legislation      149 

Public  opinion  apparently  inclines  to  a  more  or  less  unqualified 
doctrine  of  non-interference,  and,  whether  from  conviction  or 
from  fear  l  of  their  constituents,  or  as  a  means  of  obstructing 
legislation,  the  members  of  the  legislative  assembly  generally 
profess  faith  in  this  doctrine. 

The  controversy  in  regard  to  the  "rigidity"  of  direct  legisla- 
tion has  been  somewhat  confused  with  the  controversy  above  2 
described  in  regard  to  changes  in  the  system  of  direct  legislation 
itself. 

Whatever  the  merits  of  the  doctrine  of  the  "rigidity"  of  direct 
legislation,  both  the  debates  and  the  votes  in  the  legislative 
assembly  show  much  inconsistency  in  the  application  of  the 
doctrine,  and  in  many  cases  are  evidence  that  the  theory  is  used 
by  members  as  a  mere  pretext  to  obstruct  action  not  desired  by 
them. 

At  the  legislative  assembly  meeting  next  after  the  first  exercise 
of  direct  legislation  under  the  new  system,  an  attempt  was  made 
to  nullify  the  local-option  law  adopted  by  the  people  at  the  pre- 
ceding election,  but  there  was  objection  to  undoing  the  work  of 
the  voters,  and  the  matter  was  dropped.  And  since  that  time 
numerous  proposals  to  interfere  with  the  will  of  the  people 
as  expressed,  positively  or  negatively,  at  the  polls  have  been 
rejected  by  the  assembly. 

Although  the  attempt  to  nullify  the  local  option  law  at  the 
first  session  of  the  legislature  held  after  its  adoption  failed,  the 
law  was  abrogated  to  a  certain  extent  at  that  session  by  the 
grant  of  special  charters  to  several  cities  which  conferred  power 
upon  three  cities  to  regulate  the  sale  of  liquor.  This  was  one 
of  the  reasons  for  the  enactment  by  direct  legislation,  the  next 
year,  of  a  constitutional  amendment  prohibiting  interference 
with  municipal  charters  by  the  legislature.  "The  manifest  pur- 

1  "Again  I  call  you  to  beware.  Two  years  ago  I  tried  to  monkey  with  one  of  the 
people's  laws,  and  the  voters  of  Jackson  county  and  a  couple  of  papers  in  Portland 
have  not  ceased  to  howl  about  it  yet."  J.  A.  Buchanan,  house  of  representatives, 
Eugene  Register,  Feb.  10,  1911,  p.  i,  col.  i.  *  Pp.  131-2. 


150     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

pose  of  the  people  in  the  passage  of  this  constitutional  amend- 
ment was  to  prevent  the  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  statute- 
making  power  from  passing  local  laws,  the  effect  of  which  was  to 
evade  the  general  laws  initiated  by  the  people."  l  The  local 
option  law  was  later  amended  to  change  the  time  of  election,  and 
to  penalize  officials  for  failing  to  perform  their  duties  under  the 
law. 

The  direct  primary  law  of  1904  has  been  amended  by  a  num- 
ber of  laws  enacted  by  the  assembly,  but  these  amendments, 
with  one  exception,  consist  either  in  changes  in  the  mere  admin- 
istrative details  of  the  law  or  in  extending  the  scope  of  the  law. 
In  1911  the  governor  vetoed  a  bill  providing  for  "second-choice" 
voting  at  primary  elections,  partly  for  the  reason,  he  declared, 
that  it  "tampered"  with  a  law  which  the  people  had  approved.2 
The  veto  was  sustained.  But  at  the  session  of  1915  the  law  was 
very  materially  amended  to  permit  candidates  to  substitute  the 
declaration  of  candidacy  and  payment  of  a  fee  in  lieu  of  the  peti- 
tion required  by  the  original  law. 

In  1913  the  assembly  sustained  the  governor's  veto  of  a  bill 
which  made  some  substantial  changes  in  the  principle  of  the 
presidential  primary  law  of  1910  —  changes  not  tending,  he  as- 
serted, "  to  aid  or  make  more  effective  "  the  principles  on  which 
the  people's  law  was  based.3  But  at  the  next  session  important 
changes  were  made  in  the  law  by  eliminating  the  provisions  for 
"proportional  representation"  and  payment  of  delegates'  ex- 
penses to  constitutional  conventions,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  in 
the  meantime  the  people  had  rejected  a  measure  one  purpose  of 
which  was  the  elimination  of  these  same  provisions. 

The  amendment  of  the  public  utilities  act  of  1910  by  the 
assembly  in  1915  merely  extended  the  provisions  of  that  law, 
and  added  penalties  for  its  enforcement.  The  workmen's  com- 
pensation act  of  1913  was  much  "strengthened"  by  the  as- 

1  State  v.  Schluer,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  59,  pp.  18,  33  (19")-  See  also  Hall  v. 
Dunn,  ibid.,  vol.  52,  pp.  475,  485  (1908).  *  House  Journal,  1913,  p.  80. 

*  Governor  West's  Message,  Senate  Journal,  1913,  p.  1036. 


Amendment  and  Repeal  of  Direct  Legislation     151 

sembly  at  the  session  next  following.  The  amendment  of  the 
eight-hour  labor  law  at  the  same  session  expressly  to  exclude 
from  its  operation  state  institutions  and  departments  removed 
a  doubt  as  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  law. 

A  law  of  1909  which  provided  for  two  additional  judges  for 
the  supreme  court  was  severely  criticized  on  the  ground  that  the 
people  had  at  the  preceding  election  rejected  a  constitutional 
amendment  containing  a  similar  provision.  "The  legislature 
that  the  people  directly  elected  at  the  same  time  that  they 
condemned  the  increase  in  supreme  court  judges,  was  one  of  the 
most  dishonorable  legislatures  that  ever  afflicted  a  state.  It 
cared  nothing  for  the  expressed  will  of  the  people  at  the  polls, 
and  duly  proceeded  to  pass  a  measure  providing  for  two  addi- 
tional supreme  court  judges  in  open  defiance  of  people  and  law. 
.  .  .  The  increasing  of  the  supreme  court  bench  was  an  assault 
upon  the  people."  l  And  the  grievance  was  the  greater  because 
the  law  passed  with  the  emergency  clause  attached.2  But  the 
measure  rejected  by  the  people  had,  in  addition  to  the  provision 
for  an  increase  in  the  number  of  judges  of  the  supreme  court, 
"provided  for  an  entire  and  radical  change  in  the  whole  method 
of  electing  judicial,  county,  and  precinct  officers,"  and  this,  and 
not  the  provision  for  additional  judges,  may  have  been  the  cause 
of  the  defeat  of  the  measure.3  It  seems  to  have  occurred  to  no- 
body to  object  to  the  act  of  the  legislature  of  1913  which  pro- 
vided a  further  addition  of  two  justices  to  the  court. 

The  two  gross-earnings  tax  laws  of  1906  were  repealed  "by 
inference"  by  legislation  enacted  in  1907  and  1909,  but  the 
members  of  the  legislature  were  doubtless  at  the  time  unaware 
of  this  effect  of  their  action. 

The  people  rejected  the  referendum  act  of  1908  providing  for 
'  appropriations  for  local  armories  through  four  years,  but  never- 
theless the  legislative  assembly  has  made  appropriations  for  such 
armories  at  almost  every  session  since.  However,  the  appro- 

1  Oregon  Observer,  reprinted  in  Oregonian,  Nov.  i,  1000,  p.  6,  col.  6. 

1  Above,  p.  138.      *  Slate  v.  Cochran,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  55,  pp.  157,  195  (1000). 


152      Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

priations  have  been  smaller  and  have  been  made  conditional 
upon  further  local  appropriations. 

The  two  initiative  laws  of  1908  closing  the  Columbia  river 
to  commercial  fishing  were  repealed  by  the  legislative  assembly 
at  its  next  session.  But  whether  the  people  intended  their  ac- 
tion to  be  final  in  this  case  is  uncertain.1  Moreover,  the  needed 
uniformity  of  fishing  regulations  for  the  Oregon  and  the  Wash- 
ington sides  of  the  river  could  hardly  have  been  accomplished  ex- 
cept through  the  action  of  the  legislatures  of  the  two  states.2 

The  corrupt  practices  act  approved  by  the  people  in  1908 
was  amended  five  years  later  by  the  assembly,  but  only  in  the 
way  of  making  the  law  more  effective. 

The  action  of  the  assembly  of  1913  in  passing,  over  the  gover- 
nor's veto,  the  repeal  of  the  initiative  law  of  1910  which  closed 
the  Rogue  river  to  commercial  fishing  caused  a  great  deal  of 
controversy.  The  governor  considered  it  to  be  an  unwarranted 
interference  with  direct  legislation.  "Since  the  election  of  1910 
another  election  by  the  people  has  been  held  in  1912,  and  there 
was  no  effort  put  forth  to  have  the  law  either  amended  or  re- 
pealed at  this  later  election."  3  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was 
declared  that  the  repeal  was  justified  as  "righting"  a  "wrong," 
"correcting"  a  "mistake."  4 

Although  initiative  bills  providing  methods  for  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  new  counties  had  been  rejected  at  the  two  preceding  elec- 
tions, the  assembly  enacted  a  bill  on  this  subject  in  1913.  But 
the  bill  of  1910  had  contained  provisions  also  on  other  matters, 

1  Above,  p.  116.  "The  legislature  of  1909  enacted  a  new  fish  law  to  extricate  the 
fishing  interests  of  the  Columbia  river  from  the  impossible  situation  into  which  they 
had  been  driven  by  the  enactment  through  the  initiative  of  two  conflicting  laws  in 
1908.  Did  the  legislature  violate  its  plain  obligation  to  the  people?"  Oregonian, 
Feb.  17,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  2.  *C/.  ibid.,  Sept.  14,  1911,  p.  12,  col.  i. 

8  House  Journal,  1913,  pp.  1251-2.  In  answer  to  the  assertion  that  this  was  a 
local  matter  and  therefore  never  should  have  been  submitted  to  the  people  of  the 
state,  the  governor  pointed  out  that  this  bill  had  carried  in  the  localities  directly 
concerned.  Ibid. 

4  Oregonian,  Feb.  28,  1913,  p.  10,  col.  2;  F.  M.  Gill,  ibid.,  Feb.  16,  1911,  p. 
10,  col.  5. 


Amendment  and   Repeal  of  Direct  Legislation      153 

and  the  provisions  for  county  organization  both  in  this  bill  and 
the  bill  of  1912  were  different  from  those  of  the  bill  enacted  by 
the  legislature. 

The  fact  that  the  "millage  bill"  of  1912  for  the  university  and 
the  agricultural  college  was  rejected  at  the  polls  was  urged 
against  the  enactment  of  the  two  millage  laws  for  those  institu- 
tions at  the  next  session  of  the  legislative  assembly.  "At  the 
last  election  the  people  voted  down  the  millage  tax,  and  their 
decision  should  be  considered  final  at  this  time."  1  Likewise 
objection  was  made  to  the  appropriations  made  by  the  assembly 
in  1913  for  the  university  because  the  people  had  rejected  the 
university  appropriations  submitted  at  the  last  election.  But 
the  appropriations  allowed  by  the  assembly  were  much  smaller 
than  those  rejected  by  the  people,  and  the  millage  laws  enacted 
by  the  assembly  omitted  the  provision  for  the  consolidation  of  the 
management  of  the  two  institutions  contained  in  the  bill  sub- 
mitted to  the  people. 

A  "blue-sky"  law  was  enacted  by  the  assembly  in  1913, 
although  such  a  provision  had  been  defeated  at  the  polls  at  the 
preceding  election.  Objection  was  raised.  "It  is  too  much 
like  a  bill  turned  down  by  the  people.  I  say  this  bill  should  be 
put  up  to  the  people  .  .  .  who  are  as  intelligent  as  we  are,  and 
some  a  good  deal  more  so."  2  But,  on  the  other  hand,  action  by 
the  legislature  was  approved.  "The  rejection  by  the  people  of 
the  'blue  sky'  bill  submitted  to  popular  vote  under  the  initia- 
tive should  not  be  taken  by  the  legislature  as  implying  that  the 
people  do  not  desire  a  law  designed  for  substantially  the  same 
general  end.  The  initiative  bill  was  rejected  mainly  because 
it  was  not  deemed  a  proper  subject  for  the  initiative,  partly 
because  some  of  its  provisions  did  not  meet  with  general  ap- 
proval. .  .  .  The  people  of  Oregon  never  intended  to  grant 
immunity  from  punishment  to  stock  and  bond  swindlers,  nor 

1  G.  W.  Weeks,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  9,  1913,  p.  12,  col.  4. 
*  L.  G.  Lewelling,  house  of  representatives,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  16,  1913,  p.  9, 
col.  3. 


154     Initiative,   Referendum,  and   Recall  in   Oregon 

to  leave  the  field  open  to  those  swindlers  who  chose  to  take  the 
risk  of  punishment."1  The  "self-supporting"  feature  of  the 
law  enacted  probably  most  commended  it  to  opponents  of  the 
initiative  law,  in  which  this  feature  was  lacking. 

At  the  election  of  1912  the  people  adopted  two  constitu- 
tional amendments  placing  limitations  of  indebtedness  for  public 
roads  upon  the  state  and  the  counties  respectively,  and  at  the 
same  time  rejected  two  rival  bills,  one  providing  for  a  state 
highway  department,  and  the  other  for  a  state  road  board  and 
the  issue  of  state  road  bonds,  and  three  rival  measures  providing 
for  the  issue  of  county  road  bonds.  The  interpretation  of  the 
will  of  the  people  under  such  circumstances  is  a  matter  of 
difficulty.  One  interpretation  is  simply  that  the  people  were 
generally  opposed  to  the  expenditure  of  money  for  such  pur- 
poses. "The  vote  cast  upon  road  bonding  and  taxation  bills 
.  .  .  should  be  conclusive  proof  that  a  vast  majority  are 
opposed  to  bonding  and  increased  taxation  in  any  form,  and  are 
satisfied  with  the  present  system  of  building  roads."  2  But  it 
is  certain  that  the  defeat  of  legislation  was  due,  to  some  extent 
at  least,  to  the  presence  of  rival  measures  on  the  ballot,  which 
divided  the  friends  of  good-roads  legislation  against  themselves. 
Contrary  to  the  opinion  of  some  that  "the  people  had  shut  off 
the  legislature  from  passing  good- roads  legislation,"  "it  was 
agreed  by  a  large  majority  of  the  members  [of  the  senate]  present 
that  the  people,  in  rejecting  what  road  bills  they  did  at  the  last 
general  election  and  accepting  the  two  constitutional  amend- 
ments placing  limitation  on  bonded  indebtedness  for  good- 
roads  purposes,  practically  put  it  up  to  the  legislature  to  carry 
out  some  comprehensive  good-roads  plan." 3  The  controversy 
ended  by  the  enactment  of  two  road  bills,  one  providing  for  the 
issue  of  county  bonds,  but  differing  from  all  of  the  county  bills 
rejected  by  the  people,  and  the  other  for  a  state  highway  com- 

1  Oregonian,  Jan.  6,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

1 G.  C.  Mitty,  ibid.,  Dec.  21,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  7. 

'Ibid.,  Jan.  28,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  3. 


Amendment  and  Repeal  of  Direct  Legislation      155 

mission  differing  from  both  of  the  rejected  state  road  measures. 
It  was  considered  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  make  provision 
for  state  road  bonds  in  view  of  the  recent  action  of  the  people, 
but  the  law  enacted  provided  for  a  state  road  fund  and  state 
taxation  for  road  purposes. 

A  number  of  measures  rejected  by  the  voters  at  the  polls 
have  been  resubmitted  to  them  by  the  legislature  hi  the  original 
or  a  modified  form. 

It  thus  appears  that  little  undue  interference  with  direct 
legislation  has  been  effected  by  the  legislative  assembly. 

However,  for  years  there  has  been  some  agitation  for  con- 
stitutional restrictions  upon  the  power  of  the  legislature  over 
the  "people's  laws,"  even  to  the  extent  of  prohibiting  any  inter- 
ference whatever  by  the  legislature.1  And  both  in  1910  and  1912 
an  amendment,  including  many  other  matters,  proposed  that  no 
statute  or  resolution  approved  by  the  vote  of  the  people  should 
be  amended  or  repealed  by  the  legislative  assembly  except  by  a 
three-fourths  vote  of  all  members  of  each  house  of  the  legisla- 
ture.2 It  failed  of  adoption,  but  was  confused  with  so  many 

1  Reported  in  Oregonian,  Jan.  2,  1907,  p.  38,  col.  3;  May  12,  1910,  p.  7,  col.  3; 
Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  27,  1915,  p.  2,  col.  3. 

3  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1910,  no.  360,  sec.  ic,  p.  187;  1912,  no.  362,  sec.  ic,  p. 
210.  "Neither  the  legislative  assembly,  nor  any  city  council  or  other  representative 
or  legislative  body,  shall  have  the  power  to  amend  or  repeal  any  law,  or  part  thereof, 
or  any  ordinance  or  resolution,  or  part  thereof,  that  has  been,  or  that  hereafter  may 
be,  approved  and  adopted  by  the  vote  of  the  people  of  this  state,  or  if  it  be  a  local 
measure,  then  by  a  vote  of  the  people  of  the  locality  to  which  it  applies.  No  such 
measure  shall  be  amended  or  repealed  in  any  manner  other  than  by  a  majority  of 
the  legal  voters  who  vote  on  this  question  for  such  amendment  or  appeal  [repeal]." 
House  Joint  Resolution,  1915,  no.  10.  Cf.  Arizona  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  6  (1914). 
"No  act,  law  or  amendment  to  the  constitution,  adopted  by  the  people  at  the  polls 
under  the  initiative  provisions  of  this  section,  shall  be  amended  or  repealed  except  by 
a  vote  of  the  electors,  unless  otherwise  provided  in  said  initiative  measure;  but 
acts  and  laws  adopted  by  the  people  under  the  referendum  provisions  of  this  section 
may  be  amended  by  the  legislature  at  any  subsequent  session  thereof."  California 
Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1911).  "No  act,  law,  or  bill  approved  by  a  majority  of 
the  electors  voting  thereon  shall  be  amended  or  repealed  by  the  legislature  within 
a  period  of  two  years  following  such  enactment."  Washington  Constitution,  art. 
2,  sec.  ic  (1912).  See  above,  p.  174,  note  2. 


156     Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

other  subjects  in  the  same  measure  that  the  attitude  of  the 
voters  on  this  provision  is  uncertain.  The  absolute  prohibition 
of  interference  with  the  people's  laws  by  the  legislative  assembly, 
in  view  of  emergencies  which  are  likely  to  occur,  would  be  un- 
wise.1 But  with  either  absolute  or  partial  limitation  there  would 
be  created  "a  secondary  constitution  to  which  legislative  enact- 
ments must  conform,"  and  thus  would  arise  uncertainty  as 
to  the  technical  validity  of  many  statutes.2  Moreover,  such 
restriction  would  tend  to  the  unnecessary  increase  of  the  number 
of  measures  on  the  ballot.3  And  it  would  seem  that  public 
opinion,  unaided  by  constitutional  restriction,  has  generally 
been  effective  enough  to  secure  reasonable  protection  against 
abuses  by  the  legislative  assembly  in  this  regard.  Indeed, 
undue  caution  in  action  on  the  part  of  the  assembly  might  re- 
sult in  the  obstruction  of  progress  in  legislation. 

But  friends  of  direct  legislation  still  scent  danger  to  the 
"people's  laws"  from  interference  on  the  part  of  the  legislative 
assembly,  and  recently  extracted  pledges  from  candidates  for 
the  office  of  governor  to  use  the  veto  power  for  the  protection 
of  the  people's  laws.4 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  Sept.  14,  1911,  p.  12,  col.  i. 

2 Ibid.,  Sept.  14,  1911,  p.  12,  col.  i. 

3R.  G.  Calvert,  ibid.,  Jan.  29,  1915,  p.  i,  col.  7. 

4  "It  is  my  firm  belief  that  the  chief  executive  should  be  in  warm  sympathy  with 
the  laws  enacted  by  the  people.  ...  I  will  disapprove  of  any  action  aimed  or  de- 
signed against  any  law  enacted  by  the  people."  James  Withycombe  (elected), 
Oregon  Grange  Bulktin,  Nov.,  1914,  p.  i.  See  also  above,  p.i46,  note  4. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

PUBLIC  OPINION  BILLS 

No  provision  has  been  made  by  law  in  Oregon  for  "public  opin- 
ion bills,"  whereby  the  voters  may  indicate  their  desire  for  the  en- 
actment of  certain  legislation  by  the  assembly ;  *  but  the  legisla- 
tive assembly  has  been  in  effect  thus  instructed  in  some  instances. 

The  anti-pass  bill  of  1906  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority 
vote  at  the  election,  but,  in  the  absence  of  an  enacting  clause, 
the  law  was  void.  It  was  hoped  by  its  supporters  that  the  large 
majority  of  votes  for  the  bill  would  be  "accepted  by  the  legis- 
lature as  a  command  to  enact  an  effective  anti-pass  law";2 
and  when  the  legislature  met,  although  it  had  rejected  such  a 
bill  at  the  preceding  session,  it  enacted  a  law  substantially  the 
same  as  that  adopted  at  the  polls.  Again,  in  1912  the  eight- 
hour  labor  law,  adopted  by  a  smaller  majority  than  that  received 
by  the  anti-pass  law,  lacked  an  enacting  clause,  and  again  the 
legislature  obeyed  the  instructions  from  the  polls.  "Senator 
Smith  .  .  .  who  introduced  the  bill,  said  he  believed  it  could 
be  made  clearer  by  amendment,  but  he  proposed  it  now  without 
the  change  of  a  word  because  the  people  had  passed  upon  it. 
Sarcastic  remarks  were  made  by  several  senators,  who  declared 
they  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the  bill,  but  would  vote  for  it 
because  the  people  did."  3 

1  Cf.  Illinois  Laws,  1901,  p.  198;  Hurd's  Illinois  Revised  Statutes  (1912),  sees.  428- 
9;  Ohio  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  ib.  (1912) ;  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  1913, 
ch.  819.  *  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregonian,  June  27,  1906,  p.  14,  col.  4. 

*  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  4,  1913,  p.  i,  col.  i.  "Stewart  in  explaining  his  vote 
against  the  bill  declared  that  he  did  not  agree  that  the  people  cannot  make  mis- 
takes and  believed  that  the  people,  or  a  large  majority  of  them  that  voted  in  favor  of 
it,  were  laboring  under  a  misapprehension  as  to  its  contents."  Oregonian,  Feb.  5, 
1913,  p.  6,  col.  3. 

157 


158     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

The  question  of  the  voters'  "instructions"  came  up  again  at 
the  same  session  in  a  different  manner.  The  legislature  of  1911 
had  enacted  a  law  putting  the  state  printer  on  a  flat  salary  and 
otherwise  changing  the  organization  of  this  office  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  incumbent's  term.  Then  followed  an  initiative  bill 
designed  to  put  the  law  into  effect  at  once,  but  the  bill  was  de- 
feated at  the  election.  The  vote  was  interpreted,  on  the  one 
hand,  as  a  direction  for  a  repeal  of  the  law,  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
as  a  mere  concession  to  the  incumbent.1  The  law  of  1911  was 
repealed  by  the  assembly,  and  a  substitute  with  some  changes 
enacted. 

Penal  provisions  were  purposely  omitted  from  the  "state- 
wide" prohibition  amendment  of  1914.  But  the  adoption  of 
the  measure  at  the  election  was  interpreted  as  a  command  to  the 
assembly  to  provide  proper  supplemental  penal  legislation. 
"It  is  the  mandate  of  the  people  that  the  liquor  traffic  be 
abolished  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  make  the  voice 
of  the  people  effective." 2  The  proper  interpretation  of  the 
mandate  was  the  subject  of  dispute,  and  opinions  differ  as 
to  whether  the  requirements  of  the  mandate  were  fulfilled  by 
the  statute  finally  enacted. 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  16,  1013,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

1  Ben  Selling,  representative  elect,  reported  in  Orcgonian,  Nov.  8,  1014,  sec.  i, 
p.  10,  col.  3. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

COMPETITION  WITH  THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY 

"!N  the  most  enlightened  view  and  purpose,  substitution 
of  representative  government  by  a  pure  democracy  is  not  con- 
templated in  adopting  the  principle  of  direct  legislation.  The 
principle  is  best  defined  as  a  supplementary  power  given  to 
the  people  to  use  at  times  when  the  legislative  branch  of  the 
government  fails  in  what  its  authors  actually  intended  it  to  be  — 
actually  representative."  l  "We  shall  not  abandon  the  repre- 
sentative system  of  government,  of  course ;  we  will  only  check 
and  correct  it,  and  bring  it  back  to  its  true  foundation  principle, 
that  representatives  should  truly,  conscientiously  and  purely 
represent  the  masses  of  the  people." 2 

This  is  the  theory,  but  in  practice,  as  has  been  indicated,3 
direct  legislation  has  become  more  than  a  "supplementary" 
institution.  Thus,  it  is  asserted,  the  "negation  of  representa- 
tive government"  results.  "It  was  not  intended  that  rep- 
resentative government  should  be  abolished  by  the  new 
system;  but  it  has  been  abolished  by  it."  4  "The  assumption 
that  representative  government  is  a  failure  is  responsible 
for  this  state  of  things."  5  But,  as  explained  above,6  the  "sins 
of  the  legislators,"  whether  "sins  of  omission"  or  "sins  of  com- 
mission," whatever  their  extent,  are  not  the  only  causes  of  the 
multiplicity  of  measures  submitted  to  the  people. 

1  Oregonian,  Jan.  3,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

*  Oregon  Journal,  Mar.  12,  1905,  p.  4,  col.  i.  *  Above,  pp.  78-82. 

4  Oregonian,  Mar.  10,  1008,  p.  8,  col.  i.  For  the  development  of  a  "round-about 
representative  government,"  see  above,  pp.  98-9. 

*  Ibid.,  Apr.  12,  1908,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  i.  •  Pp.  82-5. 

IS9 


160     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

However,  that  this  assumption  is  to  a  considerable  extent 
justified,  that  the  shortcomings  of  the  legislature  are  the  chief 
cause  of  activity  in  direct  legislation,  is  often  declared  and 
widely  believed.  "Where  a  large  number  of  measures  appear 
on  the  ballot  it  is  both  a  demonstration  of  the  interest  of  the 
people  in  getting  good  government  and  of  the  inefficiency  and 
incompetence  of  their  representatives."  1  "The  point  has  been 
reached  where  legislatures  are  little  trusted.  Legislation  has 
been  juggled  and  trifled  with  until  most  people  have  lost  faith 
in  the  delegated  body.  So  many  incompetents  and  nincompoops 
have  been  sent  to  Salem  along  with  good  men  to  make  laws  that 
when  a  good  job  of  constructive  legislation  is  wanted  the  meas- 
ure is  framed  and  put  before  the  people.  This  accounts  for 
most  of  the  measures  on  the  ballot."  2  "It  is  manifest  that  the 
public  has  largely  lost  confidence  in  the  body.  The  action  of 
past  assemblies  has  been  such  that  there  is  little  public  faith  in 
the  capacity  and  good  purpose  of  the  representative  system. 
No  less  than  this  is  shown  in  the  almost  universal  protest  that 
has  gone  up  from  every  section  of  the  state  against  the  proposed 
special  session.  The  situation  largely  explains  why  so  many 
measures  are  proposed  by  the  initiative.  The  public  seems, 
after  use  of  both  plans,  to  have  more  faith  in  the  initiative  and 
in  the  judgment  and  capacity  of  the  people  than  in  the  legisla- 
tive body  and  the  judgment  of  its  delegated  representatives. 
The  view  is  so  general  and  so  marked  that  there  are  frequently 
heard  expressions  favoring  ultimate  abolishment  of  the  legisla- 
ture."3 "Why  a  legislature,  anyhow,  in  a  state  where  the 
people  have  the  law-making  power?" 4 

1  W.  S.  U'Ren,  reported  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  8,  1912,  p.  13,  col.  i. 

*  Oregon  Journal,  May  u,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  i.         3  Ibid.,  Oct.  2,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  2. 

4  Oregon  City  Courier,  quoted  in  Oregonian,  Dec.  2, 1913,  p.  10,  col.  2.  "  We  have 
nearly  reached  the  conviction  that  the  legislature  is  unnecessary.  I  would  not  be 
at  all  surprised  if  soon  a  bill  would  be  initiated  doing  away  with  the  legislature 
altogether.  An  amendment  to  the  resolutions  adopted  [by  the  Central  Labor  Coun- 
cil] last  night,  was  that  we  favor  the  abolishing  of  the  legislature,  but  this  amendment 
was  overruled  because  of  the  feeling  that  such  an  expression  was  premature.  But  it 


Competition  with  the  Legislative  Assembly     161 

The  fact  that  measures  appear  on  the  ballot  which  have  pre- 
viously failed  in  the  legislature  is  of  course  no  condemnation  of 
the  legislature  unless  those  measures  are  meritorious.  Indeed, 
in  some  cases,  the  appeal  from  the  legislature  to  the  people  has 
been  caused  by  the  refusal  of  the  legislature  to  be  influenced  by 
pernicious  special  interests. 

Over  half  of  the  initiative  measures  which  have  appeared  on 
the  ballot  may  fairly  be  said  to  have  been  presented,  in  one  form 
or  another,  first  for  action  by  the  legislative  assembly,  and  only 
after  failure  of  enactment  there  to  have  been  submitted  to  the 
people.  But  many  of  these  measures  have  been  reform  meas- 
ures, and,  as  shown  by  the  large  majority  received  at  the  elec- 
tion, measures  demanded  by  public  opinion.  However,  other 
measures  which  the  assembly  has  refused  to  pass  have  also  failed 
to  receive  the  popular  approval.  "If  inefficiency  and  irrespon- 
siveness  to  public  will  on  the  part  of  the  law-making  body  had 
been  responsible  for  the  large  number  of  measures  presented  in 
the  recent  campaign,  the  fact  would  have  been  shown  in  the 
adoption  of  a  large  percentage  of  those  measures.  As  the 
people  declared  they  did  not  want  two-thirds  of  them,  how  is  the 
legislature  at  all  to  blame  for  not  enacting  them?"  1 

Where  the  defeat  of  meritorious  legislation  by  the  legislative 
assembly  cannot  be  urged  as  an  excuse  for  placing  a  measure  on 
the  ballot,  it  has  been  declared  that  it  is  not  even  worth  while 
to  submit  propositions  of  some  kinds  to  the  assembly.  "Should 
the  legislature  undertake  the  passage  of  such  a  ["blue-sky"]  law 
the  legislators  would  be  besieged  by  lobbyists  who  would  seek 
to  so  alter  the  bill  as  to  leave  it  valueless.  It  would  come  through 
the  mill  so  emasculated  as  to  be  of  no  service  to  the  people."  2 

is  coming."  William  McKenzie,  union  labor  leader,  quoted  in  Oregon  Journal, 
Sept.  23,  1911,  p.  i,  col.  5.  "In  time  the  people  may  strip  the  legislature  of  every 
power  it  once  enjoyed,  leaving  it  but  a  place  in  memory,  and  themselves  exercise 
directly  within  the  state  all  of  the  powers  formerly  committed  to  the  legislature." 
Kalich  v.  Knapp,  Pacific  Reporter  (Oregon),  vol.  145,  pp.  22,  26  (1914) 

1  Oregonian,  Nov.  24,  1912,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  3. 

1  East  Oregonian,  reprinted  in  Eugene  Guard,  Oct.  25,  1912,  p.  4,  col.  3. 
II 


1 62     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

The  large  number  of  measures  on  the  ballot  is,  especially 
under  the  conditions  prevailing  in  the  making  of  petitions,  no 
certain  evidence  of  desire  on  the  part  of  the  people  as  a  whole 
to  "supersede  representative  government."  "While  the  sub- 
mission of  thirty-seven  measures  in  one  election  may,  on  its 
face,  seem  to  show  a  tendency  toward  democracy,  the  freedom 
with  which  the  principle  is  applied  cannot  be  ascribed  to  desire 
by  the  people  to  supersede  representative  government.  Rather 
it  is  due  to  the  ease  with  which  laws  may  be  initiated  or  referred. 
The  fact  that  they  are  on  the  ballot  is  not  proof  that  the  people 
desired  to  pass  on  them,  for  the  test  of  public  opinion  in  this 
direction  must  rest  wholly  in  the  action  taken  at  the  polls."  l 
And  by  their  action  at  the  polls  the  people  have  sustained 
the  legislature  in  case  of  eight  of  the  fourteen  acts  subjected 
to  the  referendum  by  petition,  while  only  thirty-five  of  the 
ninety-five  initiative  measures  have  been  approved  at  the 
elections. 

The  quality  of  the  representation  in  the  legislative  assembly 
can  of  course  be  improved  by  the  election  of  better  men  by  the 
voters.  "Those  who  would  abolish  the  legislature  and  let 
the  people  make  the  laws  must  remember  the  people  named  and 
chose  the  members  of  the  legislature,  and  a  stream  cannot  rise 
above  its  head.  The  people  are  ruling." 2  "The  legislature  is 
what  the  people  make  it.  They  have  the  ballot.  They  have  the 
votes.  They  do  the  electing.  They  get  what  they  vote  for. 
.  .  .  The  people  themselves  must  shoulder  the  responsibility 
for  legislative  follies.  The  legislature  is  of  their  own  making, 
and  when  they  howl  at  the  legislature,  they  are  only  howling 
at  themselves."  3 

Competition  with  the  legislative  assembly  has  been  charged 
as  due  not  only  to  the  quality  of  the  membership  of  the  assembly, 
but  also  to  its  present  form  of  organization  and  to  the  legislative 
processes  now  prevailing.  Some  proposed  radical  changes  in 

1  Oregonian,  Jan.  3,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2.  8  Ibid.,  Feb.  25,  igi3,  p.  8,  col.  4. 

•  Oregon  Journal,  Sept.  25,  1912,  p.  6,  col.  I. 


Competition  with  the  Legislative  Assembly      163 

the  organization  of  the  assembly  by  way  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation and  the  abolition  of  the  senate  would,  it  is  urged, 
"make  the  legislature  as  progressive  as  the  people  of  the  state," 
and  thus  greatly  reduce  the  necessity  of  resort  to  direct  legisla- 
tion.1 The  division  of  the  legislative  session  into  two  periods, 
one  exclusively  for  the  purpose  of  the  introduction  of  measures, 
and  the  other  for  the  enactment  of  measures  into  law  (and  for 
both  the  introduction  and  enactment  of  measures  appearing 
during  the  session  to  be  demanded  by  public  opinion),  would, 
it  is  believed,  by  allowing  public  criticism  of  the  legislative 
program  during  the  recess,  make  the  legislature  more  respon- 
sive to  public  opinion,  and  thus  tend  to  reduce  the  amount  of 
direct  legislation.2  But  there  is  probably  much  more  agree- 
ment as  to  the  necessity  of  rational  reforms  for  efficiency,  for 
the  absence  of  which  the  legislative  assembly  is  itself  wholly 
responsible.3 

Of  course  under  the  present  system  the  governor  shares  the 
responsibility  for  proper  legislation  with  the  assembly,  and 
thus  comes  in  for  some  criticism  in  connection  with  discussion 
of  responsibility  for  the  extensive  use  of  direct  legislation.4 

1  People's  Power  League,  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  pp.  220,  222. 

1  "Whereas,  It  is  the  desire  of  the  twenty-seventh  assembly  of  the  state  of  Ore- 
gon to  be  responsive  to  the  will  of  the  people  in  the  enactment  of  meritorious  legisla- 
tion demanded  by  them,  thereby  to  prevent  crowding  of  the  ballot  in  the  future 
with  initiative  measures,  now,  therefore,  Be  it  resolved,  the  senate  concurring, 
That  the  twenty-seventh  legislative  assembly  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  now  in  session, 
fully  realizing  our  duty  and  responsibility  to  the  people,  do  declare,  that  we  are  ready, 
able  and  willing  to  enact  any  meritorious  legislation  that  may  be  brought  to  us  from 
the  people,  to  the  end  that  such  matters  may  be  disposed  of  with  due  care  and  dis- 
patch, and  to  the  further  end  that  the  ballot  at  the  next  ensuing  general  election  in 
the  state  of  Oregon  shall  not  be  crowded  with  more  measures  —  with  or  without 
uncertain  meanings  and  design  —  than  the  people  of  the  state  of  Oregon  can  properly 
and  carefully  consider  and  vote  upon. 

"That  the  people  are  therefore  requested  to  present  all  measures  to  said  legislative 
assembly  at  as  early  a  date  as  possible  so  that  the  same  may  be  given  due  considera- 
tion." House  Joint  Memorial,  1913,  no.  i,  passed  by  the  house  of  representatives, 
but  not  by  the  senate.  House  Journal,  1913,  pp.  153-4. 

8  See  especially  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  10,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  i. 

*E.g.,  Oregonian,  Oct.  29,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  2. 


164     Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

Without  any  lack  of  confidence  in  the  legislative  assembly, 
direct  legislation  may  be  substituted  for  representative  legisla- 
tion in  cases  where  it  is  practically  certain  that  measures  if  en- 
acted will  be  referred  by  petition.1  But,  of  course,  in  such  cases, 
the  voters  are  without  the  advantage  of  the  discussion  of  the 
merits  of  the  measures  by  the  assembly. 

Upon  the  theory  that  direct  legislation  is  to  be  used  only  as  a 
check  upon  or  a  supplement  to  legislation  enacted  by  the  legis- 
lative assembly,  it  has  been  proposed  to  limit  by  law  the  use 
of  the  initiative  to  cases  where  the  legislature  has  refused  to  act. 
"No  bill  should  ever  be  allowed  to  be  placed  upon  the  ballot  by 
the  initiative  unless  a  bill  having  the  same  general  objects  or 
containing  the  same  subject-matter  had  first  been  introduced 
in  the  legislature  and  had  there  failed  of  passage.  ...  If  a 
new  law  is  enacted,  the  place  to  have  it  enacted  is  in  the  legis- 
lature. ...  [It  will  receive  discussion  in  the  legislature]  as 
well  as  from  the  press  and  public ;  by  such  discussion  its  crude 
features  will  be  eliminated,  its  weak  points  probably  discovered 
and  the  whole  measure  strengthened  and  worked  over  into  a  more 
acceptable  form.  Then,  if  through  any  undue  influence  it  fails 
to  pass,  it  can  be  placed  before  the  people  with  much  better 
chance  of  its  being  a  '  safe '  project  and  being  understood  by  the 
average  voter."  2  In  accord  with  this  view  it  has  been  definitely 
proposed  that  initiative  measures  shall,  under  provision  of  law, 
be  presented  to  the  legislative  assembly  first,  and  that  the  as- 
sembly shall  have  the  power  either  to  adopt  the  measures  as  sub- 
mitted, or  to  offer  a  competing  measure  and  submit  both  meas- 
ures together  to  the  popular  vote.3  Precedents  of  several  other 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  Oct.  23,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  7. 

*  A.  T.  Buxton,  reported  in  Oregonian,  Mar.  24,  1008,  p.  6,  col.  i.  See  also  espe- 
cially Oregon  Journal,  May  i,  1000,  p.  6,  col.  3.  For  the  view  that  legislation  is 
likely  to  be  the  worse  for  its  revision  by  the  assembly,  see  above,  pp.  28-9. 

1 W.  S.  U'Ren,  Resets  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Proceedings  of  the 
American  Political  Science  Association,  vol.  4,  pp.  193,  197  (1907);  A.  T.  Buxton, 
quoted  in  Oregonian,  May  15,  1908,  p.  6,  col.  3 ;  C.  H.  Chapman  and  others, 
Introductory  Letter,  1909,  pp.  6,  '  1-2 ;  report  in  Oregonian,  Sept.  9,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  2. 


Competition  with  the  Legislative  Assembly     165 

states  point  in  this  direction,1  and  such  provision  has  already 
been  made  in  case  of  initiative  ordinances  of  Oregon  cities.2 

"The  plan  has  its  attractions.  .  .  .  The  number  of  initiative 
measures  would  be  cut  down  if  the  legislature  acted  both  in 
harmony  and  good  faith,  but  if  obstructive  in  tendency  or  con- 
tentious in  spirit,  each  measure  petitioned  for  would  bring  forth 
two  at  the  election  following  the  session  of  the  legislature.  Al- 
ternative or  rival  measures  .  .  .  tend  to  defeat  each  other,  even 
though  a  majority  of  the  voters  favor  the  basic  principle  involved 
in  each."  3  However,  it  would  seem  that  this  objection  might 
be  removed,  as  above 4  suggested,  by  a  system  of  preferential 
voting  or  alternative  measures. 

1  E.g.,  Washington  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  i  (a)  (igi2). 

The  proposed  Wisconsin  provision  is  a  new  departure.  "The  people  reserve 
to  themselves  power  ...  to  propose  laws  and  to  enact  or  reject  the  same 
at  the  polls.  ...  A  proposed  law  .  .  .  shall  consist  of  a  bill  which  has  been 
introduced  in  the  legislature  during  the  first  thirty  days  of  the  session,  as  so 
introduced ;  or  at  the  option  of  the  petitioners,  there  may  be  incorporated  in  said 
bill  any  amendment  or  amendments  introduced  in  the  legislature.  .  .  .  Upon 
petition  filed  not  later  than  four  months  before  the  next  general  election,  such  pro- 
posed law  shall  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  petition  shall  be  filed 
with  the  secretary  of  state  and  shall  be  sufficient  to  require  the  submission  by  him 
of  a  measure  to  the  people  when  signed  by  eight  per  cent  of  the  qualified  electors," 
etc.  And  similar  provisions  for  constitutional  amendments.  Proposed  Wisconsin 
Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i ;  art.  12,  sec.  3,  rejected  (1014). 

1  "If  any  ordinance,  charter  or  amendment  to  the  charter  of  any  city  shall  be  pro- 
posed by  initiative  petition,  such  petition  shall  be  filed  with  the  city  clerk  .  .  .  and 
he  shall  transmit  it  to  the  next  session  of  the  city  council.  The  council  shall  either 
ordain  or  reject  the  same,  as  proposed,  .  .  .  and  if  the  council  shall  reject  said  pro- 
posed ordinance  or  amendment,  or  shall  take  no  action  thereon,  then  the  city  clerk, 
.  .  .  shall  submit  the  same  to  the  voters  of  the  city  or  town.  ...  If  the  council 
reject  such  ordinance  or  amendment,  or  take  no  action  thereon,  it  may  ordain  a  com- 
peting ordinance  or  amendment,  which  shall  be  submitted  by  the  city  clerk  ...  to 
the  people  of  the  said  city  or  town,  at  the  same  election  at  which  said  initiative  pro- 
posal is  submitted."  Laws,  1907,  ch.  226,  sec.  12;  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  sec.  3482. 

I0regonian,  July  26,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  i.     See  above,  p.  49. 

4  Pp.  49-50.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  legislative  assembly  might  well  be 
empowered  to  amend  initiative  measures  in  order  to  improve  their  form,  without  de- 
stroying the  "sense  or  purpose"  of  the  original.  "Obviously  some  safeguard  should 
be  thrown  around  the  initiative  measures  proposed  to  the  legislature  if  amendments 
by  that  body  were  to  be  permitted.  Why  not  permit  amendment  of  the  phraseology 
of  such  bills  and  refer  them  to  the  supreme  court  for  decision  as  to  whether  the  sense 


1 66     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

But  whatever  the  amount  of  competition  with  the  legislative 
assembly,  from  the  ever-increasing  amount  of  legislation  enacted 
by  the  assembly  —  one  hundred  and  fifty- two  laws  in  1901, 
three  hundred  and  forty-nine  laws  in  1915  —  it  is  clear  that 
there  is  no  danger  that  the  representative  legislature  will  be 
superseded  by  the  direct  action  of  the  people.1 

or  purpose'of  the  original  has  been  destroyed?  A  court  opinion  that  the  legislature 
had  not  emasculated  the  bill  should  serve  as  well  as  submission  of  the  matter  to  the 
people.  The  referendum  would  protect  the  public  from  the  imposition  through  the 
imperative  mandate  of  laws  it  did  not  desire."  Oregonian,  Mar.  27,  1911,  p.  6, 
col.  3. 

1  Cf.  R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3, 
pp.  256,  268  (1914). 


CHAPTER  XVm 

THE  EFFECT  OF  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  ON  THE 
CHARACTER  AND  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  LEGISLA- 
TIVE ASSEMBLY 

"THE  first  noticeable  effect  was  a  large  decrease  in  the  number 
of  paid  lobbyists  at  the  next  session  of  the  legislative  assembly 
in  January,  1903,  and  the  comparative  number  of  charges  that 
the  action  of  members  on  any  bill  had  been  influenced  by  money. 
The  legislature  made  mistakes,  but  no  one  charged  it  with  being 
corrupt.  It  was  generally  conceded  that  the  absence  of  corrupt- 
ing influences  was  largely  due  to  fear  that  the  referendum  would 
be  demanded  on  any  legislation  obtained  by  such  methods."  1 
And  although  the  paid  lobby  is  still  much  in  evidence  and  charges 
of  actual  corruption  of  members  of  the  legislature  are  occasion- 
ally made,  some  of  them,  at  least,  upon  good  grounds,  present 
conditions  are  in  very  great  contrast  with  the  disgraceful  condi- 
tions which  existed  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  system  of  direct 
legislation.  "The  fact  that  legislative  measures  can  be  reviewed 
by  popular  vote  is  a  club  that  makes  legislators  behave  them- 
selves. The  fact  that  if  the  legislature  does  not  pass  a  good 
measure  the  people  can  and  will,  is  the  most  powerful  influence 
in  the  world  to  compel  legislators  to  enact  good  laws.  ...  It 
steadies  the  legislature  and  keeps  it  strictly  sane.  It  keeps  that 
body  from  becoming  purled  up  and  enables  it  to  more  distinctly 
hear  the  wishes  of  the  people.  It  is  a  safety  valve  against  legis- 
lative follies,  a  guarantee  against  legislative  extravagance  and 
a  sign  post  pointing  members  to  the  path  of  duty."  2 

1 W.  S.  U'Ren,  Operation  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Arena,  vol. 
32,  p.  128  (1004).    See  also  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregonian,  Apr.  29,  1907,  p.  5,  col.  7. 
*  Oregon  Journal,  Sept.  18,  1909,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

167 


1 68     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

But  the  popular  control  over  the  legislative  assembly  which 
has  been  made  more  effective  by  the  operation  of  the  direct 
primary,  established  two  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum,  has  doubtless  had  very  much  to  do  with 
the  change  in  the  character  of  the  assembly,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  divide  the  honors  in  this  connection  between  direct  nomination 
and  direct  legislation.  Further,  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  much 
of  the  reform  has  been  due  to  the  change  in  public  sentiment 
rather  than  to  the  operation  of  the  new  instruments  of  govern- 
ment. 

However,  the  legislative  assembly  has  by  no  means  yet  reached 
perfection  under  all  these  influences  combined,  and  indeed  the 
enthusiasts  for  direct  legislation  are  the  loudest  in  their  com- 
plaints of  the  "unrepresentative"  character  of  their  representa- 
tives in  the  assembly.1 

Although  it  is  probably  generally  conceded  that  the  initiative 
and  referendum  have  been  powerful  instruments  in  the  develop- 
ment of  negative  virtue  in  the  legislature,  there  is  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  their  influence  for  positive  virtue. 

Of  course,  under  the  system  of  direct  government,  in  a  sense, 
the  people  are  responsible  for  all  legislation.  "With  this  power, 
it  necessarily  follows  that  the  people  themselves  must  assume 
the  responsibility  not  only  for  laws  which  are  written  in  our 
statute-books  and  which  ought  not  to  remain  there,  but  for  fail- 
ure to  enact  those  laws  which  ought  to  be  enacted.  .  .  .  Blame 
for  bad  laws  was  accustomed  in  those  days  to  be  visited  upon  the 
legislature,  but  now  responsibility  rests  with  the  people  them- 
selves." 2  It  is  constantly  asserted  that  under  the  present  sys- 
tem legislatures  evade  responsibility  for  legislation  and  shift  it 
upon  the  people.  "  If  men  in  public  office  are  not  to  have  stam- 
ina enough  to  consider  well  the  best  interests  of  their  constitu- 
ents and,  having  decided,  act  courageously,  then  they  had  better 
resign  office,  or  else  the  whole  representative  system  ought  to  be 

1  Above,  pp.  82-5,  159-60. 

1  Governor  Chamberlain,  reported  in  Oregonian,  Apr.  27,  1906,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


Effect  of  Direct  Legislation  on  the  Legislature     169 

done  away  with  and  all  legislation  and  administration  be  per- 
formed by  the  people  direct,  with  whatsoever  success  might  be 
possible."  l  And  it  must  be  admitted  that  evidence  of  a  tend- 
ency to  avoid  responsibility  does  at  times  appear  hi  the  legisla- 
tive assembly.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  there  is  more  evi- 
dence of  an  increased  sense  of  responsibility  there  —  for  what  is 
done,  due,  in  part,  to  the  referendum,  for  what  is  not  done,  due, 
in  part,  to  the  initiative.2  "  We  have  had  some  experience  with 
the  referendum,  and  we  should  go  slow."  3  "Shall  we  put  this 
before  the  people  ourselves,  or  shall  we  ask  the  people  to  place  it 
on  the  ballot  by  petition  of  eight  per  cent  of  the  voters?"4 
But  there  is  danger  that  the  clamor  of  special  narrow  interests 
will  be  mistaken  by  the  legislative  assembly  for  public  opinion, 
and,  in  fact,  during  the  session  of  the  assembly  disappointed 
advocates  or  opponents  of  legislation,  however  broad  or  narrow 
the  interests  they  represent,  are  constantly  threatening  to  invoke 
either  the  initiative  or  the  referendum. 

The  constitutional  provision  which  permits  the  legislative 
assembly  to  submit  statutes  to  the  people  of  the  state  for  ap- 
proval or  rejection  5  is  vicious  in  that  it  may  tempt  the  assembly 

1  Eugene  Register,  Jan.  5,  1913,  p.  12,  col.  2.  See  also  J.  N.  Teal,  Practical  Work- 
ings of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Proceedings  of  the  Cincinnati  Confer- 
ence for  Good  City  Government,  1909,  pp.  309,  311 ;  S.  A.  Lowell,  Oregonian,  Jan.  25, 
1913,  p.  6,  col.  5. 

1  Cf.  R.  W.  Montague,  Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Review,  vol.  3, 
pp.  256,  268  (1914). 

*  C.  Schuebel,  house  of  representatives,  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  17,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  2. 

*  A.  H.  Eaton,  house  of  representatives,  Eugene  Guard,  Feb.  8, 1913,  p.  13,  col.  i. 
The  ever-increasing  amount  of  legislation  enacted  by  the  legislative  assembly 

(above,  pp.  78-80)  might  appear  to  be  evidence  against  any  tendency  of  the  assembly 
to  shift  its  responsibility  upon  the  people.  But,  although  the  increase  in  the  volume 
of  legislation  might  be  interpreted  to  prove  that  the  assembly  does  not  refrain  from 
action  in  view  of  the  power  of  the  people  to  obtain  desired  legislation  independently 
of  the  assembly  through  the  initiative,  it  might  as  well  be  interpreted  to  indicate  that 
the  assembly  is  becoming  less  conservative  and  tending  to  cast  the  final  responsibility 
for  action  upon  the  people  in  view  of  their  power  to  nullify  undesired  legislation  by 
the  referendum.  However,  this  increase  in  the  volume  of  such  legislation  has  doubt- 
less been  due  mostly,  if  not  wholly,  to  causes  unconnected  with  direct  legislation. 
§  Constitution,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902).  Above,  pp.  9-10. 


170     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

to  shift  the  responsibility  for  the  enactment  of  legislation,  for 
which  it  has  been  chosen,  back  upon  the  electors,  and  also  to  add 
to  the  already  overloaded  ballot.  The  action  of  the  legislature 
is  practically  a  substitute  for  an  initiative  petition  whereby 
the  legislature  may  suggest  rather  than  enact  legislation,  and 
thus  become  hi  this  regard  a  mere  "probouleutic"  assembly. 

However,  so  far  the  possibilities  of  evil  of  this  power  of 
referendum  have  been  little  realized.  The  two  statutes  sub- 
mitted in  this  manner  at  the  election  of  1914  are  the  first  of  the 
kind,  and  they  come  within  the  class  only  by  a  technical  con- 
struction of  the  law.  They  had  both  been  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple before  and  had  been  rejected,  and  hence,  on  the  principle  of 
the  practical  "rigidity"  of  direct  legislation,  could  not  con- 
sistently have  been  finally  enacted  by  the  legislature.1 

1  Above,  pp.  132-44.  Cf.  proposed  Wisconsin  constitutional  amendment  prohibit- 
ing the  legislature  from  referring  statutes  to  the  voters.  Proposed  Wisconsin  Consti- 
tution, art.  4,  sec.  i,  rejected  (1914). 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  REFERENDUM  AS  A  SUBSTITUTE  FOR  CON- 
STITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS  UPON  THE  LEGIS- 
LATIVE ASSEMBLY 

NUMEROUS  limitations  upon  the  power  of  the  legislature 
have  been  considered  in  the  past  an  absolute  necessity  on  ac- 
count of  the  actual  or  possible  mistakes  or  abuses  of  power  by 
the  legislature.  The  legislature  has  thus  been  unable,  in  many 
matters,  to  institute  reforms  except  by  the  submission  of  con- 
stitutional amendments  to  the  people,  and  the  people,  on  the 
other  hand,  have  had  to  vote  upon  questions  which  in  some  in- 
stances they  would  doubtless  have  preferred  to  leave  to  the 
judgment  of  the  legislature  if  they  had  had  any  power  to  correct 
the  action  of  the  legislature  in  case  correction  might  be  really 
needed.  The  check  upon  the  legislature  now  secured  through 
the  referendum  makes  unnecessary  many  of  the  present  limita- 
tions, and  this  opens  the  way  for  entrusting  more  power  to  the 
legislature.  The  substitution,  to  some  extent,  of  the  optional  for 
the  obligatory  referendum  would  bring  a  very  great  advantage, 
especially  in  case  of  technical  measures  of  legislation,  which  the 
voters  are  likely  to  reject  when  submitted  to  them  for  the  simple 
reason  that  they  do  not  understand  them.1  Further,  in  removing 
some  of  the  sources  of  possible  conflict  between  constitutional 
and  statutory  provisions,  this  reform  would,  so  far,  substitute  the 
legislation  of  the  assembly  for  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  and 
thus  favor  policy  rather  than  technicality  in  legislation.2 

1  Above,  pp.  37-41,  112-13. 

*  "The  judicial  control  over  legislation  is  not  in  any  case  an  unmixed  blessing, 
because  it  decreases  legislative  efficiency  and  as  employed  to  the  present  time  has 

171 


172     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

The  amendment  of  the  constitution  adopted  in  1912,  which 
removes  to  a  considerable  extent  the  limitations  imposed  upon 
the  legislative  assembly  in  the  organization  of  the  judicial  de- 
partment of  the  state  government,  is  in  accord  with  this  idea. 

often  checked  for  many  years  needed  reforms  which  the  courts  have  been  forced  to 
accept  in  the  end,  but  the  state  judicial  power  over  legislation  when  employed  as 
frequently  and  as  irresponsibly  as  during  the  past  thirty  years,  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered an  instrument  of  very  great  value.  In  fact  the  referendum  has  in  some  cases 
been  advocated  because  of  the  belief  that  it  will  weaken  or  destroy  this  very  power." 
W.  F.  Dodd,  Revision  and  Amendment  of  State  Constitutions,  pp.  254-5  (191°)- 


CHAPTER  XX 
DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND  THE  COURTS 

i 
The  Interpretation  of  Direct  Legislation 

POPULAR  legislation,  like  ordinary  legislation  enacted  by 
the  representative  assembly,  is  of  course  interpreted  and  ap- 
plied by  the  courts,  and  the  courts  necessarily  in  some  cases 
of  crudely  constructed  measures  "practically  legislate  amend- 
ments by  decisions."  J  And  since  statutes  adopted  by  the 
people  are  in  general  subject,  from  the  standpoint  of  law,2 
to  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  constitution  upon  ordinary 
legislation,  there  is  a  possibility  also  that  the  courts  may 
find  popular  legislation  to  be  unconstitutional,  although  so 
far,  in  actual  practice,  this  possibility  has  scarcely  been  realized 
at  all.  There  is  a  tendency  to  jealousy  of  any  interference 
with  the  "people's  laws"  on  the  part  of  the  courts,  as  on  the 
part  of  the  legislative  assembly.3  "Of  course  there  is  going 
to  be  trouble  over  the  enforcement  of  the  workmen's  compen- 
sation act,  which  has  just  been  adopted  by  such  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  by  the  people  of  the  state.  .  .  .  The  next  step 
will  be  to  call  upon  the  courts  for  a  judicial  decree,  and  by  the 
time  they  get  through  juggling  with  it,  it  will  be  hard  for  the 
people  to  recognize  the  law  they  have  so  unanimously  adopted. 
...  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  case  the  decision  as  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  is  thrown  into  the  courts  that  the 
legal  wise-acres  will  have  judgment  enough  to  listen  to  the 

1  F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory  Results  under  Initiative  Amend- 
ments of  the  Oregon  Constitution,  p.  2  (1910). 

1  Below,  pp.  180-1.  8  Above,  pp.  145-56. 

173 


174     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

advice  of  the  people." 1  Indeed  much  objection  has  been 
raised  even  against  instituting  court  proceedings  to  keep  off 
the  ballot  measures  not  conforming  to  the  technical  require- 
ments of  the  law,2  and  measures  the  petitions  for  which  have 
been  tainted  with  fraud. 


"  The  Recall  of  Judicial  Decisions  " 

Some  tune  before  the  announcement  of  Roosevelt's  proposi- 
tion for  "the  recall  of  judicial  decisions,"  it  had  been  suggested 
in  Oregon  that  the  system  of  direct  legislation  might  logically 
be  extended  by  "an  amendment  providing  referendum  votes 
on  decisions  of  the  supreme  court."  3  In  the  legislative  as- 
sembly of  1913  there  was  a  futile  attempt  to  embody  a  modifi- 
cation of  Roosevelt's  plan  in  a  constitutional  amendment. 
"Whenever  the  highest  court  of  the  state  shall  declare  an  act  of 
the  legislature  affecting  either  social  or  industrial  conditions  to 
be  void  on  the  ground  that  authority  to  enact  it  had  not  been 
delegated  by  the  people  to  the  legislature,  the  question  shall  be 
submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  electors  at  the  next  general  election 
thereafter,  unless  the  legislature  shall  provide  for  its  submission 
at  an  earlier  date  as  follows:  'Shall  chapter  .  .  .  become  a 
law  ? '  and  if  the  majority  of  the  votes  cast  for  and  against  the 

1  Eugene  Guard,  Nov.  7, 1913,  p.  4,  col.  i.  See  also  Eugene  Register,  Dec.  3,  1913, 
p.  4,  col.  i ;  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  3, 1914,  p.  6,  col.  i.  "When  a  majority  of  the  elec- 
tors voting  at  a  state  election  shall  by  their  votes  signify  approval  of  a  law  or  resolu- 
tion, such  law  or  resolution  shall  stand  as  the  law  of  the  state,  and  shall  not  be  over- 
ruled, annulled,  set  aside,  suspended,  or  in  any  way  made  inoperative  except  by  the 
direct  vote  of  the  people."  Nevada  Constitution,  art.  19,  sec.  2  (1004). 

1  "No  law  or  amendment  to  the  constitution  initiated  and  approved  by  the  elec- 
tors as  herein  provided,  shall  be  held  unconstitutional,  or  void  on  account  of  the 
insufficiency  of  any  initiative  petition ;  nor  shall  the  repeal  of  any  law  submitted  by 
the  referendum  petition  be  held  invalid  for  such  insufficiency."  Minnesota  Consti- 
tution, art.  4,  sec.  i  (d),  rejected  (1914).  See  W.  F.  Dodd,  Revision  and  Amend- 
ment of  State  Constitutions,  pp.  228-36  (1910) ;']  Oregonian,  July  28, 1915,  p.  6,  col.  2. 

1  F.  V.  Holman,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory  Results  under  Initiative  Amend- 
ments of  the  Oregon  Constitution,  p.  46  (1910). 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Courts  175 

proposition  shall  be  in  the  affirmative,  it  shall  take  effect  ten  days 
after  the  completion  and  certification  of  the  official  canvass  of 
the  votes,  the  same  excepting  with  respect  to  the  time  it  takes 
effect,  as  if  its  enactment  had  been  authorized  by  the  constitu- 
tion, which  shall  be  deemed  amended  so  as  to  authorize  it,  and 
it  shall  be  subject  to  amendment  and  repeal  the  same  as  other 
laws."  1 

On  account  of  the  practical  obliteration  of  differences  between 
constitutional  and  ordinary  statutory  law  under  the  system  of 
initiative  legislation  in  Oregon,2  it  would  seem  that  a  provision 
for  the  "recall  of  judicial  decisions"  would  add  absolutely 
nothing  to  the  power  which  the  people  already  possess.  "If  the 
Oregon  supreme  court  declares  unconstitutional  a  law  the  major- 
ity of  the  people  want,  we  can  write  that  law  into  the  constitu- 
tion by  initiative  just  as  easily  and  by  the  same  process  that  we 
write  an  ordinary  statute." 3  The  people  may  thus  easily 
change  the  constitution  "piece-meal,"  to  nullify,  for  the  future, 
the  effect  of  a  specific  judicial  decision,  or  "wholesale,"  to  change 
a  broad  principle  of  constitutional  law.4  It  is  probably  for  this 

1  House  Joint  Resolution,  1913,  no.  12.  See  Oregonian,  Feb.  5,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  2 ; 
Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  6,  1913,  p.  4,  col.  4. 

"None  of  the  said  courts  except  the  supreme  court  shall  have  any  power  to  declare 
or  adjudicate  any  law  of  this  state  or  any  city  charter  or  amendment  thereto  adopted 
by  the  people  in  cities  ...  as  in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  this  state  or  of  the 
United  States ;  provided  that  before  such  decision  shall  be  binding  it  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  or  disapproval  by  the  people.  .  .  .  All  such  laws  or  parts  thereof 
submitted  as  herein  provided  when  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon 
.  .  .  shall  be  and  become  the  law  of  this  state  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the 
supreme  court.  .  .  .  All  such  charters,  or  amendments  thereto,  .  .  .  when  ap- 
proved by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon  .  .  .  shall  be  and  become  the  law  of 
this  state  and  of  said  city  .  .  .  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court." 
Colorado  Constitution,  art.  6,  sec.  i  (1914). 

1  Below,  pp.  180-4.  See  A.  L.  Lowell,  Government  and  Parties  in  Continental 
Europe,  vol.  2,  pp.  296-7  (1896) ;  W.  F.  Dodd,  Revision  and  Amendment  of  State 
Constitutions,  pp.  252-8  (1910).  *  Oregonian,  Mar.  i,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  3. 

4  That  the  "recall"  of  decisions  allows  gradual  and  partial  reform  in  place  of 
change  of  general  principles  by  constitutional  amendment,  has  been  considered,  from 
a  generally  conservative  point  of  view,  to  be  a  disadvantage  rather  than  an  advantage. 
"The  impatient  man,  in  his  haste  to  undo  an  individual  wrong,  thus  would  leave  the 


ij6     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

reason  that  there  has  been  little  popular  interest  here  in  this 
innovation  of  government. 

general  wrong  unredressed.  The  patient  man,  who  strikes  at  the  root  of  an  evil, 
uses  the  individual  wrong  as  an  ax  wherewith  to  hew  out  the  roots  and  to  bring  down 
the  whole  evil  growth.  Not  because  recall  of  decisions  impairs  the  dignity  and  inde- 
pendence of  the  courts;  not  because  it  is  necessary  to  right  judicial  wrongs,  but 
because  it  is  reform  by  piecemeal,  is  the  measure  unwise.  We  had  better  by  far  wait 
longer  and  make  a  complete  job  of  the  reform."  Oregonian,  Dec.  9,  1913,  p.  10, 
col.  2.  See  also  ibid.,  Nov.  2,  1913,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  4. 


CHAPTER  XXI 


A  BILL  providing  for  a  constitutional  convention  was  de- 
feated in  the  legislative  assembly  of  1905,  three  years  after  the 
system  of  direct  legislation  was  adopted.  Those  back  of  the 
movement  were  suspected  of  the  intention  of  securing  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  initiative  and  referendum,1  but  doubtless  opposition 
was  caused  also  by  a  belief  that  under  the  system  of  direct  legis- 
lation the  constitutional  convention  is  a  superfluity.2  In  order 
to  safeguard  the  new  system,  the  People's  Power  League  in  1906 
was  instrumental  in  placing  on  the  ballot  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment providing  that  "no  convention  shall  be  called  to  amend  or 
propose  amendments  to  this  constitution,  or  to  propose  a  new 
constitution,  unless  the  law  providing  for  such  convention  shall 
first  be  approved  by  the  people  on  a  referendum  vote  at  a  regular 
general  election."  3  This  was  adopted  by  the  people. 

In  1909  a  bill  calling  a  constitutional  convention  passed  the  leg- 
islative assembly  and,  under  the  law,  was  submitted  for  the  deci- 
sion of  the  people.  The  friends  of  the  movement  urged  the  neces- 
sity of  a  systematic  revision  of  the  "ancient"  constitution,  in  place 
of  the  "piece-meal "  methods  prevailing.  "  Shall  we  continue,  at 
a  great  expense,  to  attempt,  in  the  present  spasmodic,  erratic  and 
unsystematic  manner  to  revise  a  faulty  constitution  ?  Shall  we 
continue,  at  each  succeeding  election,  to  vote  upon  amendments 
proposed  by  any  manner  or  group  of  men  ?  Shall  we  continue  to 

1  See  especially  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  27,  igos,  p.  4,  col.  i ;  Feb.  i,  igos,  p.  5, 
col.  5.  2  Cf.  C.  E.  Ladd,  quoted  in  Arena,  vol.  29,  p.  271  (1003). 

'Constitution,  art.  17,  sec.  i  (1906). 

N  177 


178     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

adopt  proposed  amendments  without  amendment  or  debate? 
Shall  we  continue  to  allow  our  constitution-making  to  be  done 
by  self-appointed  law-makers  who  are  responsible  to  nobody? 
Would  it  not  be  better  to  submit  the  whole  question  to  a  body  of 
sixty  men,  selected  according  to  law,  and  then  at  the  polls  pass 
upon  the  results  of  their  deliberations  ?  Would  it  not  be  better 
to  follow  some  well-defined  plan  than  continue  to  patch  our  con- 
stitution piece-meal  and  at  random,  where  those  who  prepare 
the  amendments  are  generally  unknown  and  responsible  to  no 
constituency?"  * 

But  the  motives  of  the  advocates  of  the  convention  were  sus- 
pected. "It  was  urged  by  those  who  were  responsible  for  the 
passage  of  the  bill  calling  for  the  convention  that  our  constitu- 
tion was  coming  to  be  a  motley  affair  and  was  sadly  in  need  of 
complete  revision.  It  is  probable  that  the  average  citizen  has 
not  felt  the  urgent  need  of  this  revision  to  the  same  extent  as 
the  professional  politician  who  finds  many  of  the  opportunities 
and  much  of  the  boodle  of  his  former  occupation  cut  off  by  the 
present  provision  of  the  constitution  giving  the  people  a  direct 
control  of  the  affairs  of  the  government.  This  is  the  bright 
particular  spot  in  the  present  constitution  at  which  these  revi- 
sionists are  aiming.  It  is  the  elimination  of  this  feature  which 
they  hope  to  secure  by  the  adoption  of  a  new  constitution.  Most 
of  us  have  been  laboring  under  the  impression  that  when  any- 
thing particularly  wrong  should  be  found  in  our  constitution 
we  have  a  comparatively  easy  method  of  remedying  the  diffi- 
culty; we  have  felt  that  we  had  reached  a  point  beyond  the 
necessity  of  a  constitutional  convention.  Not  so  the  politician, 
and  those  who  look  to  him  to  promote  their  interests.  They 
want  to  do  away  with  the  initiative  and  referendum.  At  first 
they  hoped  to  do  it  through  the  courts.  They  realize  the  hope- 
lessness of  taking  it  directly  to  the  people,  at  least  at  the  present 
time.  But  the  constitutional  convention  could  be  packed  and 

1  C.  N.  McArthur,  Need  of  a  Constitutional  Convention,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon 
Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  148,  157. 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Convention       179 

manipulated  just  as  the  old  political  conventions  were,  and  made 
to  give  us  a  new  constitution  with  direct  legislation  left  out 
or  so  arranged  as  to  destroy  its  effectiveness.  It  is  true,  the 
matter  would  still  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  and,  if  it 
were  unsatisfactory,  they  would  have  an  opportunity  to  reject  it. 
.  .  .  There  is  one  safe  plan  to  be  followed  .  .  .  that  is  to  leave 
the  thing  alone.  If  we  got  a  new  constitution  and  it  was  un- 
satisfactory, we  might  be  able  to  vote  it  down  and  we  might 
not."1 

Some  persons  went  further  and  declared  that  there  was  really 
no  intention  of  allowing  the  people  to  decide  on  the  new  consti- 
tution. "The  plan  is  to  have  a  new  constitution  made  and 
'  proclaimed '  by  the  convention  as  the  constitution  of  Oregon, 
without  permitting  the  people  to  vote  on  that  new  constitution. 
In  that  way  .  .  .  the  convention  can  make  a  new  constitution 
for  Oregon,  leaving  out  the  initiative,  referendum  and  recall, 
and  thus  take  from  the  people  the  power  they  now  have  to  man- 
age their  public  affairs."  2 

That  there  was  any  real  intention  of  bringing  about  the  pro- 
mulgation of  a  constitution  without  a  vote  of  the  people  is  al- 
most impossible ;  but  a  great  many  voters  believed  this  to  be 
the  case,  and,  perhaps  chiefly  for  this  reason,  the  proposition 
for  a  convention  was  overwhelmingly  defeated  at  the  election. 
However,  there  was  at  least  some  hope  among  conservatives 
that  Oregon  could  be  induced  to  "shake  off  a  large  part  of  her 
progressive  garments."  3 

1  A.  T.  Buxton,  Pacific  Grange  Bulletin,  Aug.,  1909,  p.  3,  col.  4. 

1  People's  Power  League,  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1910,  pp.  18,  10.  See  also  Oregon 
Journal,  Apr.  4,  1009,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  resolution  of  State  Grange,  Oregonian,  May  16, 
1909,  p.  6,  col.  i.  The  decisions  of  courts  of  other  states  holding  valid  constitutions 
"proclaimed"  by  constitutional  conventions  were  cited.  On  this  subject  see  espe- 
cially J.  A.  Jameson,  Constitutional  Conventions,  4th  ed.,  pp.  414,  490-503  (1887) ; 
C.  S.  Lobingier,  People's  Law,  pp.  330-7  (1009). 

1  Reported  in  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  21,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  4. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

DIRECT    LEGISLATION    AND    THE    STABILITY    OF 
GOVERNMENT 

THE  original  constitution  provided  for  the  submission  of 
proposed  constitutional  amendments  by  the  majority  vote 
of  all  members  elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses  of  two  succes- 
sive legislative  assemblies  to  the  electors,  and  required  for 
ratification  of  the  amendment,  the  vote,  apparently,  of  a  major- 
ity of  all  the  electors  voting  at  the  election.1  This  was  a  very 
slow  and  cumbersome  procedure  compared  with  that  provided 
in  1902,  whereby  constitutional  amendments  may  be  submitted 
to  the  people  in  the  same  way  as  other  measures  by  initiative 
petition.2  But  since  1906  the  approval  by  the  legislative  as- 
sembly at  one  session  has  been  sufficient  for  the  submission  of 
amendments  to  the  voters.  Further,  since  1906  the  majority 
for  ratification  of  such  measures  has  been  the  same  as  in  the  case 
of  measures  submitted  by  the  initiative,  a  majority  of  the  votes 
cast  on  the  measure.3 

As  a  general  rule,  initiative  statutory  measures  are,  techni- 
cally, subject  to  the  same  constitutional  limitations  as  are  stat- 
utes enacted  by  the  legislative  assembly,4  although  in  a  few 

1  Constitution,  art.  17,  sec.  i  (1850).  See  State  v.  Swift,  Indiana  Reports,  vol.  69, 
p.  505  (1880) ;  In  Matter  of  Denny,  ibid.,  vol.  156,  p.  104  (1000) ;  T.  M.  Cooley, 
Constitutional  Limitations,  7th  ed.,  pp.  892-3  (1006) ;  Lobingier,  People's  Law,  pp. 
326-30  (1909).  2  Ibid.,  art.  4,  sec.  i  (1902). 

1  Ibid.,  art.  17,  sec.  i  (1906).  For  opposition  to  this  amendment  as  increasing 
the  instability  of  the  constitution,  see  Oregonian,  May  28,  1906,  p.  6,  col.  6. 

4  Kadderly  v.  Portland,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  44,  pp.  118,  146  (1903);  State  v. 
Richardson,  ibid.,  vol.  48,  pp.  309, 318  (1006)  ;  Slate  v.  Langworthy,  ibid.,  vol.  55,  pp. 
303,  308  (1910).  "The  limitations  expressed  in  the  constitution,  on  the  powers  of 
the  general  assembly  to  enact  laws,  shall  be  deemed  limitations  on  the  power  of  the 
people  to  enact  laws."  Ohio  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  i  (1912). 

180 


Direct  Legislation  and  Stability  of  Government     181 

matters  the  restrictions  apply  only  to  action  by  the  assembly.1 
But  it  is  evident  that  this  technical  limitation  can  easily  be 
evaded.  "Under  the  system  now  prevailing,  a  clause  of  the 
organic  act  appears  to  control  only  the  legislative  assembly, 
since  it  requires  no  more  effort  nor  any  greater  care  to  amend  a 
clause  of  the  constitution  than  it  does  to  enact,  alter,  or  repeal 
a  statute,  for  a  majority  vote  is  sufficient  to  give  sanction  to  a 
bill,  and  no  greater  vote  is  required  to  amend  the  fundamental 
law.  ...  As  a  majority  vote  of  the  qualified  electors  by  an 
exercise  of  the  initiative  power  can  enact  a  statute,  they  can, 
by  giving  such  a  law  an  appropriate  article  and  section  and  en- 
titling it  an  amendment  of  the  constitution,  make  it  a  part  of 
the  fundamental  law  and  render  the  supposed  stability  of  the 
organic  act  subject  to  sudden  and  serious  changes."  2 

It  had  early  been  suggested  that  this  would  become  a  general 
practice.  "In  order  ...  to  escape  conflict  with  the  constitu- 
tion, many  proposed  bills  are  likely  to  be  adopted  as  parts  of  the 
constitution,  whereas  they  should  properly  be  enacted  as  stat- 
utes, if  enacted  at  all.  This  possibly  leaves  many  persons  to 
lament  that  the  barriers  between  the  constitution  and  the 
statutes  no  longer  exist."  3  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has 
been  very  little  statutory  matter  formulated  into  constitutional 
amendments  for  this  reason,  or,  at  least,  chiefly  for  this  reason. 

1  In  practice,  new-county  statutes  are  the  only  examples  of  such  initiative  legis- 
lation. A  constitutional  amendment  of  1910  made  the  referendum  on  tax  bills 
passed  by  the  assembly  obligatory,  at  the  same  time  that  it  exempted  from  constitu- 
tional limitation  tax  measures  referred  to  the  people  either  by  the  legislature  or  by 
initiative  petition  (Constitution,  art.  9,  sec.  la  (1910)),  but  this  was  repealed  two 
years  later.  Constitution,  art.  9,  sec.  la  (1912). 

*  State  v.  Schluer,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  59,  pp.  18,  27  (1911). 

1  Oregonian,  Dec.  27,  1903,  p.  16,  col.  i.  Cf.  W.  F.  Dodd,  Revision  and  Amend- 
ment of  State  Constitutions,  pp.  252-8  (1910). 

When  a  bill  is  in  conflict  with  existing  provisions  of  the  constitution,  it  has  been 
contended  that  the  constitution  must  be  amended  before  the  bill  can  be  submitted 
to  the  voters ;  but  doubtless  the  better  view  is  that  an  act  will  be  valid  if  passed  si- 
multaneously with  the  constitutional  amendment.  Cf.  Oregonian,  May  10, 1912,  p.  12, 
col.  i.  However,  in  the  analogous  case  where  a  law  has  been  declared  by  the  courts 
to  be  unconstitutional  and  the  constitution  has  been  later  so  amended  that  such  a 


1 82     Initiative;  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

But,  under  the  circumstances,  it  seems  absurd  that  a  mere 
detail  of  the  form  of  a  measure  should  be  of  such  consequence.1 

However,  it  is  clear  that  so  far  as  initiative  legislation  is  con- 
cerned, there  is  practically  no  constitution  in  Oregon.  "The 
constitution  of  Oregon  is  only  a  check  or  restriction  on  the  legis- 
lature. The  people's  will  rises  above  it."  2  "There  is  no  con- 
stitution, for  it  is  subject  to  such  flux  and  change  as  no  longer  to 
be  the  mainstay  of  our  government."  3  "The  only  constitu- 
tional protection  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  this  state  to-day 
lies  in  the  federal  constitution,  but  as  that  instrument  bears  only 
indirectly  upon  important  questions  ...  it  is  quite  evident 
that  in  all  ordinary  matters  of  government  the  people  of  Oregon 
are  practically  without  constitutional  protection."  4 

Not  only  on  account  of  such  practical  absence  of  constitutional 
limitations  upon  initiative  legislation,  but  on  account  of  the 
extreme  ease  of  working  the  initiative  and  referendum,  these 
institutions  have  been  branded  as  "revolutionary."  "They 
violate  the  very  principles  upon  which  and  for  which  organized 
society  forms  a  constitution.  .  .  .  They  upset  society.  .  .  . 
They  have  the  effect  practically  of  abolishing  constitution  and 
laws  altogether ;  or  at  least  keeping  people  who  would  defend 
the  stability  and  orderly  progress  of  society,  always  on  guard, 
always  under  arms,  for  their  defense."  6  "Why  .  .  .  should  the 
state  be  kept  in  continual  turmoil  and  uproar,  to  hold  a  check 

law  could  be  enacted,  the  weight  of  decision  favors  the  view  that  the  law  declared 
void  must  be  reenacted  in  order  to  be  valid.  But  the  authority  of  the  United  States 
supreme  court  is  to  the  contrary.  See  especially  Cyclopedia  of  Law  and  Procedure, 
vol.  8,  p.  768;  T.  M.  Cooley,  Constitutional  Limitations,  7th  ed.,  pp.  259-60  (1903). 

1  Cf.  Oregonian,  May  10,  1912,  p.  12,  col.  i. 

9  Oregonian,  Dec.  22,  1912,  sec.  3,  p.  8,  col.  3. 

1  C.  H.  Carey,  New  Responsibilities  of  Citizenship,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar 
Association,  1908-10,  pp.  18,  33.  "The  people  inaugurated  constitutional  govern- 
ment, and  have  not  yet  abandoned  the  constitution  they  promulgated  in  the  begin- 
ning." Andrews  v.  Neil,  Oregon  Reports,  vol.  61,  pp.  471,  474  (1912). 

4  C.  N.  McArthur,  Need  of  a  Constitutonal  Convention,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon 
Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  148,  154.  See  also  Oregonian,  Mar.  19,  1908,  p.  8 
col.  i ;  Jan.  18,  1009,  p.  6,  col.  2 ;  July  6,  1909,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  F.  V.  Holman,  Chicago 
Civic  Federation  Bulletin,  no.  3,  p.  12  (1911).  ^Oregonian,  Feb.  18, 1908,  p.  8,  col.  i. 


Direct  Legislation  and  Stability  of  Government     183 

upon  this  dangerous  system,  and  often  be  plunged  into  terror 
about  it?"1 

The  rights  of  the  minority  are  declared  to  be  in  constant  dan- 
ger from  the  system.  "It  is  an  evil  [of]  our  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, that  a  slender  majority  can  on  the  exciting  impulse  of  a 
single  election  now  ride  rough-shod  over  all  the  rights  of  a 
minority,  even  to  sweeping  away  any  or  all  of  the  elementary 
constitutional  safeguards  which  the  experienced  wisdom  of  ages 
have  established  as  supposed  permanent  guarantees  of  the 
rights  of  individuals,  and  of  minorities,  against  sudden  encroach- 
ments of  majorities.  .  .  .  Nobody  knows  when  it  may  go  off 
next,  nor  where  it  may  strike."  2 

And  indeed  some  of  the  best  friends  of  the  system  of  di- 
rect legislation  are  of  the  opinion  that  at  least  constitutional 
amendments  can  be  made  too  easily  under  the  present  law.  "It 
is  a  fact  that  as  matters  now  stand,  the  constitution  can  be 
amended  far  too  easily  for  the  safety  and  security  of  the  state. 
I  venture  to  call  attention  to  this  matter  again  this  year  merely 
to  suggest  that  it  would  be  well  for  friends  of  the  system  to  give 
consideration  to  means  of  its  modification  in  this  particular  be- 
fore more  sweeping  changes  are  forced  by  its  enemies."  3  And 
doubtless  more  friends  of  the  system  occasionally  long  for  a 
"closed  season"  against  its  operation.  There  is  additional 
cause  for  such  an  attitude  in  the  fact  that  questions  "settled  by 
the  people"  in  some  cases  do  not  remain  settled,  but  come  up 
before  the  legislature  or  the  people  again  and  again  in  the  origi- 
nal or  a  somewhat  modified  form. 

The  various  proposed  checks  upon  the  use  of  the  initiative 
and  referendum  have  been  discussed  above.4 

It  is  true  that  under  the  old  system  the  constitution  was 
changed  but  once  in  the  period  of  forty-three  years,  and  that  it 

1  Oregonian,  July  21,  1909.  p.  8,  col.  2.     See  also  ibid.,  July  5,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 
8  M.  C.  George,  Oregonian,  Mar.  23,  1908,  p.  9,  col.  2. 

1  Master  of  the  State  Grange,  reported  in  Oregonian,  May  13,  1009,  p.  6,  col.  3. 
See  also  Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  22,  1908,  sec.  5,  p.  6,  col.  2.  4  Pp.  84-5. 


184     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

has  been  changed  twenty-three  times  in  one-fourth  of  that  period 
while  the  new  system  has  been  in  operation,  and  that,  hi  all, 
during  the  latter  period,  sixty-one  amendments  to  the  constitu- 
tion have  been  proposed,  twenty-three  submitted  by  the  legis- 
lative assembly,  and  thirty-eight  initiated  by  petition.  But  of 
the  twenty-three  amendments  adopted  1  by  the  voters  only  nine 
—  all  initiated  by  petition  —  can  be  considered  of  really  funda- 
mental importance  —  those  (i)  providing  for  the  majority  vote 
to  be  required  for  the  adoption  of  amendments  submitted  by 
the  legislature  and  for  an  obligatory  referendum  on  acts  calling  a 
constitutional  convention,  (2)  home-rule  charters  for  cities, 
(3)  the  local  initiative  and  referendum,  (4)  the  recall,  (5)  au- 
thorizing proportional  representation,  (6)  county  home-rule  in 
taxation,  etc.,  (7)  three-fourths  verdict  and  reorganization  of  the 
judicial  system,  (8)  woman's  suffrage,  and  (9)  the  substitute 
for  county  home-rule  in  taxation.  Moreover,  of  the  thirty- 
eight  attempts  to  amend  the  constitution  which  have  failed, 
only  eight  —  the  two  propositions  for  the  "wholesale"  reorgani- 
zation of  the  legislative  department  of  the  state,  the  two  "  single- 
tax"  propositions,  with,  perhaps  the  fif teen-hundred-dollar  tax 
exemption  and  the  sur-tax  amendments,  submitted  together,  and 
together  an  analogue  to  the  "single-tax"  amendments,  the 
universal  eight-hour  labor  amendment,  and  the  'Socialists' 
proposal  for  a  department  of  public  works  for  the  benefit  of  the 
unemployed  —  have  been  very  "radical,"  and  not  all  of  these 
have  been  really  "disturbing."  And  none  of  the  statutory  law, 
enacted,  or  merely  submitted,  has  been  very  "radical." 

However,  it  is  asked,  "is  change  a  crime?  Must  states  and 
nations  not  go  forward?  China  clung  to  the  same  old  order 
several  thousand  years.  .  .  .  Is  that  the  way  we  ought  to  do?"2 

1  Five  of  the  amendments  adopted  originated  in  the  legislature,  and  the  other 
fourteen  were  submitted  by  initiative  petition. 
*  Oregon  Journal,  Dec.  17,  igia^p.  8,  col.  2. 


CHAPTER  XXin 

DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

"Ix  is  one  of  the  greatest  merits  of  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum that  it  makes  possible  a  clear  separation  between  local 
and  national  issues.  Under  the  older  system  .  .  .  the  people 
could  express  their  opinion  upon  such  a  matter  as  the  Barlow 
road  purchase  only  by  their  choice  of  legislators.  In  determin- 
ing this  choice,  numerous  other  questions  necessarily  played  a 
part.  .  .  .  The  method  of  initiative  and  referendum  permits 
each  voter  to  express  his  individual  opinion  upon  every  question 
standing  entirely  by  itself  and  without  admixture  of  personal  or 
partisan  bias.  It  absolutely  separates  the  business  department 
of  legislation  from  the  personal  or  partisan  side.  .  .  .  Under 
the  old  system  he  [the  voter]  could  not  vote  for  his  opinion  upon 
this  matter  of  pure  business  without  voting  against  his  party. 
This  was  a  real  misfortune,  and  it  greatly  contributed  to  dis- 
hearten the  common  man  with  politics.  ...  It  was  all  prom- 
ises and  no  performance.  Under  the  Oregon  system  the  voter 
acts  directly  upon  results.  The  individual  feels  his  manhood 
as  he  could  not  under  the  purely  representative  method."  x 

But  the  very  general  realization  of  the  absence  of  party 
issues  in  state  politics,  the  declining  faith  in  the  reality  of  na- 
tional party  distinctions,  and  the  separation  of  national  and 
local  politics  encouraged  for  some  years  by  the  direct,  or  prac- 
tically direct,  system  of  election  of  United  States  senators,  have 
so  largely  operated  toward  the  substitution  of  "business"  for 
partisan  politics  in  elections  that  the  actual  effect  of  direct  legis- 
lation in  this  connection  is  obscured.  And  its  effect  upon  party 

1  Oregonian,  June  10,  1906,  p.  6,  col.  5. 
185 


1 86     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

organization  is  also  uncertain.  "Party  political  organizations 
are  in  failing  health.  The  absolute  power  to  decide  all  ques- 
tions by  'Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  state  of  Oregon,' 
and  to  decide  many  questions  at  one  election  and  each  separately 
on  its  own  merits  appears  to  be  fatal  to  the  perfection  of  party 
discipline  and  organization." l  But  certainly  the  practical 
annihilation  of  party  organization  has  been  due  more  to  the 
operation  of  the  direct  primary,  a  child  of  direct  legislation, 
than  to  the  operation  of  direct  legislation  itself. 

It  was  predicted  that  with  the  power  of  initiative  and  referen- 
dum reserved  to  the  voters  they  would  be,  as  in  Switzerland, 
"no  longer  obliged  to  defeat  a  useful  public  servant  for  re-elec- 
tion and  thus  destroy  his  political  career  in  order  to  overrule  his 
vote  or  opinion  on  some  one  question,"  no  matter  how  impor- 
tant it  might  be.2  And  perhaps  in  actual  practice  the  Swiss 
precedent  is  to  some  extent  followed  in  Oregon. 

1 W.  S.  U'Ren,  Oregonian,  Apr.  29, 1907,  p.  5,  col.  7. 

1  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Initiative  and  Referendum  inOregon,  Arena,  vol.  29,  pp.  270,  273-5 
(1003). 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

STATE  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND   FEDERAL 
MATTERS 

"A  NATIONAL  initiative  and  a  national  referendum  is  the 
logical  and  necessary  sequel  of  a  state  initiative  and  a  state 
referendum."  1 

But  whatever  the  desirability  or  practicability  of  "com- 
pounding the  American  people  into  one  common  mass"  for  the 
purpose  of  direct  legislation,  there  is  no  reason  why  voters  of 
the  state  may  not  be  vested  with  more  power  over  federal  legis- 
lation than  they  exercise  at  present.  Before  the  direct  election 
of  United  States  senators  by  the  voters  of  the  states  was  pro- 
vided for  by  the  amendment  of  the  federal  constitution,  direct 
election  was  accomplished  in  Oregon,  and  later  in  other  states,  by 
a  system  under  which  candidates  for  the  legislature  pledged 
themselves  to  vote  for  the  people's  choice  of  senators,  and, 
when  elected,  kept  that  pledge.  The  same  principle  is  contained 
in  the  presidential  primary  law.  This  principle  might  well  be 
applied  to  advance  popular  control  over  the  federal  constitution 
and  statutes.  Candidates  for  congress  and  the  legislative 
assembly  might  thus  be  practically  required  to  pledge  themselves 
to  further  or  to  oppose  federal  legislation,  statutory  or  constitu- 
tional, in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  voters  of  the  state 
as  expressed  on  the  particular  questions  submitted  at  the  elec- 
tion.2 

1  Oregonian,  July  3,  1911,  p.  6,  col.  2.  "We  are  very  much  interested  in  seeing 
this  spread  [of  the  initiative  and  referendum]  to  other  states,  because  we  do  not  get 
the  full  benefit  of  it  until  we  have  it  nationally."  W.  S.  U'Ren,  reported  in  Chicago 
City  Club  Bulletin,  vol.  2,  p.  478  (1909).  *  See  below,  p.  193. 

187 


CHAPTER  XXV 

THE  POPULARITY  OF  DIRECT  LEGISLATION 

THE  constitutional  amendment  of  1902  establishing  the  ini- 
tiative and  referendum  was  adopted  by  the  overwhelming  vote 
of  62,024  to  5668.1 

But  there  is  still  opposition2  to  the  system.  Some  of  the  oppo- 
sition is  doubtless  due,  partly  to  objections  to  direct  government 
upon  general  principles,  and  partly  to  the  natural  objections  of 
interests  whose  policies  have  been  thwarted  by  the  system; 
but  probably  it  is  due,  at  least  as  much,  to  the  abuses  which  the 
system  has  suffered  in  practice.  However,  all  the  opposition 
together  is  probably  comparatively  insignificant,  and  the  general 
popularity  of  the  system  well  established.  It  is  universally  ad- 
mitted that  there  are  faults  in  the  system,  but  the  principle  of 
the  system  is  very  generally  accepted. 

"Withal,  it  cannot  be  said  that  faith  in  the  principle  has 
been  shaken  among  even  a  reasonable  proportion  of  the  voters. 
Rather  the  weaknesses  of  the  present  laws  governing  the  use  of 
the  initiative  and  referendum  are  recognized  and  admitted. 
Some  improvement  is  needed."  3  "The  Oregon  system  is  not  in 
the  balances.  It  is  here  to  stay.  The  people  rule  ...  in 
Oregon  through  the  Oregon  system,  and  they  have  no  wish  or 
desire  or  purpose  to  go  back  to  old  methods."4  "Dissenters 
must  reconcile  themselves  the  best  way  they  can  to  living  under 
the  new  system.  Adjustment  may  come  slowly  in  some  in- 
stances, but  it  will  come  in  course  of  time."  6 

1  Seventy-two  per  cent  of  those  voting  at  the  election  voted  on  the  amendment. 
And  see  above,  pp.  3-5. 

*  It  is  perhaps  significant  in  this  connection  that  the  amendment  of  1006  extending 
the  initiative  and  referendum  to  the  localities  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  only  47,678 
to  16,735.  And  see  above,  pp.  177-9.  *  Oregonian,  July  5,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

4  Ibid.,  May  8,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  2.  *  Ibid.,  Feb.  21,  1912,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

188 


PART  II 
THE  RECALL 


THE  RECALL1 

THE  "final  crowning  act  to  complete  the  temple  of  popular 
government  here,"  as  it  was  described,2  was  the  adoption  of  the 
"recall"  by  a  constitutional  amendment  in  igo8.3  As  in  the 
case  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  the  "recall"  or  "impera- 
tive mandate"  had  been  advocated  for  years  in  Oregon  before 
its  final  adoption.  The  constitutional  amendment  which  was 
finally  submitted  to  the  people  was  initiated  by  the  People's 
Power  League  under  the  leadership  of  W.  S.  U'Ren.  It  was  ap- 
proved by  a  majority  of  43,948  to  26,778. 

"The  recall  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  special  election  to 
determine  whether  an  official  shall  be  superseded  before  the  ordi- 
nary expiration  of  his  term."4  The  constitutional  provision6 
allows  the  recall  of  any  elective  public  officer  in  the  state 6  by 
the  voters  of  the  district  from  which  he  was  elected.  The 
recall  is  begun  by  the  filing,  with  the  proper  state  or  local  author- 
ity, of  a  petition  demanding  the  recall,  signed  by  twenty-five 
per  cent  of  the  number  of  electors  who  voted  in  the  district  at 
the  preceding  election  for  justice  of  the  supreme  court.7  The 
petition  must  set  forth  the  reasons  for  the  demand.  The 

1  Revised  from  American  Political  Science  Review,  vol.  6,  pp.  41-53  (1912). 

*  East  Oregonian,  reprinted  in  Oregon  Journal,  Jan.  i,  1907,  p.  6,  col.  6. 

*  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  18  (1008).  *  Oregonian,  Feb.  24,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  4. 
1  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  18  (1008).    Cf.  House  Joint  Resolution,  1907,  no.  18. 

There  has  been  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  law,  but  the 
interpretation  here  given  is  that  followed  in  practice. 

8  As  a  part  of  the  plan  for  the  reorganization  of  the  legislative  assembly  submitted 
to  the  people  by  the  People's  Power  League  in  1910  there  was  included  a  plan  for  the 
recall  of  either  or  both  houses  of  the  assembly.  Referendum  Pamphlet,  1910,  no. 
360,  sec.  3,  pp.  189-90.  See  also  C.  H.  Chapman  and  others,  Introductory  Letter, 
1909,  pp.  16-18;  People's  Power  League,  Introductory  Letter,  1911,  p.  12,  sec.  3!). 

7  See  above,  p.  6,  note  i. 

191 


192      Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

officer  may  avoid  a  recall  election  by  resignation.  If  he  does  not 
resign  within  five  days  after  the  petition  has  been  filed,  a  special 
recall  election  is  called.  The  "special"  election  is  sometimes 
held  at  the  same  time  as  a  general  or  a  primary  election.1  On  the 
" sample  ballot"  the  reasons  for  demanding  the  recall  as  set 
forth  in  the  petition  and  the  officer's  justification  of  his  course 
in  office  are  printed,  in  neither  case  to  the  extent  of  more  than 
two  hundred  words.  Until  very  recently,  "the  conception  of  a 
recall  election  has  been  that  it  is  simply  a  requirement  that  the 
incumbent  shall  run  against  one  or  more  candidates  for  his  office 
before  his  term  has  expired."  2  But  a  decision  of  the  supreme 
court  of  1914  requires  the  question  of  recall  and  the  question  of 
succession  to  office  hi  case  of  recall  to  be  submitted  separately 
on  the  ballot.3  The  incumbent  is  still  virtually  a  candidate  for 
re-election  without  nomination,  since  others  may  be  nominated 
for  the  office,  and  the  person  receiving  the  highest  number  of 
votes  cast  at  the  election  is  declared  elected,  whether  he  is  the 
person  whose  recall  is  demanded  or  another.4  No  petition  may 

1  Saving  of  expenses  can  of  course  be  effected  by  holding  a  recall  election  at  the 
same  time  as  a  regular  election.  A  motive  for  holding  a  separate  election  for  the 
purpose  may  be  that  fewer  persons  would  vote  at  a  special  election  than  at  a  general 
election  and  that  while  opponents  of  the  officials  attacked  would  turn  out  in  force, 
many  of  their  supporters  would  stay  at  home.  Cf.  Oregonian,  Mar.  14,  1914,  p.  4, 
col.  2 ;  Apr.  24,  1914,  p.  4,  col.  3.  *  Oregonian,  Oct.  22,  1914,  p.  10,  col.  2. 

*  "  In  our  judgment  the  simple  and  natural  construction  of  this  section  is  that  .  .  . 
there  are  two  questions  to  be  decided  by  the  electorate :  First,  the  principal  one,  of 
whether  the  people  will  recall  said  officer ;  and,  the  second,  of  who  shall  be  his  suc- 
cessor, which  is  subsidiary  and  conditional  upon  the  determination  of  the  first  ad- 
versely to  the  incumbent  of  the  office.  The  essence  of  the  section  is  the  recall  of  an 
officer.  This  accomplished  —  and  not  until  then  —  it  becomes  necessary  to  consider 
who  shall  take  his  place,  and  this  is  determined  by  the  selection  of  one  from  among 
whatever  number  of  candidates  may  offer  themselves  for  the  place."  Stale  v.  Bar- 
bur,  Pacific  Reporter  (Oregon),  vol.  44,  p.  126  (1914). 

4  Should  there  be  no  other  candidate  at  the  election  except  the  incumbent,  he  would 
retain  his  office  in  spite  of  a  majority  vote  for  his  recall.  And  even  where  other  can- 
didates appear,  "the  paradox  may  happen  that  the  recall  will  in  effect  defeat  itself," 
because  "it  is  possible  that  .  .  .  the  plurality  of  votes,  although  a  very  small  mi- 
nority of  the  total,  may  go  to  the  individual  who  first  held  the  office  in  question." 
State  v.  Barbur,  Pacific  Reporter  (Oregon),  vol.  144,  pp.  126-7  (1914)-  See  also  John 
Pipes,  reported  in  Oregonian,  May  17,  1912,  p.  8,  col.  5. 


The  Recall  193 

be  circulated  against  an  officer  until  he  has  held  office  for  six 
months,  except  in  the  special  case  of  a  member  of  the  legislative 
assembly,  in  which  case  it  may  be  filed  within  five  days  from  the 
beginning  of  the  first  session  after  his  election.  After  one  recall 
election  no  additional  recall  petitions  may  be  filed  against  the 
same  officer  during  the  same  term  unless  the  petitioners  pay  into 
the  public  treasury  the  amount  of  the  expenses  of  the  preceding 
recall  election.  Although  the  constitution  expressly  authorizes 
legislation  for  the  "payment  by  the  public  treasury  of  the  reason- 
able special  election  campaign  expenses"  of  the  officer  subjected 
to  a  recall  election,  no  such  legislation  has  yet  been  enacted.1 

It  has  been  proposed  to  extend  the  recall  by  extra-constitu- 
tional provision,  to  include  United  States  senators  and  represent- 
atives.2 

There  was  much  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  constitutional 
amendment  providing  for  the  recall  was  legally  effective  without 
further  legislation  until  the  supreme  court  decided,  in  1914,  that 
the  amendment  is  self-executing.3  It  is  still  uncertain  as  to 
whether  school  directors  can  legally  be  recalled  in  the  absence 

1  Constitution,  art.  2,  sec.  18  (1908).    Cf.  House  Joint  Resolution,  1907,  no.  18. 

1  In  1911  there  was  some  talk  of  recalling  a  representative  in  congress  on  account 
of  improper  personal  conduct,  but  of  course  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives is  final  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  its  own  members,  the  recall  amend- 
ment could  not  be  applied  in  this  case.  See  especially  Oregonian,  Aug.  12,  191 1,  p.  6, 
col.  5 ;  Oregon  Journal,  Aug.  13,  1911,  sec.  2,  p.  4,  col.  4.  The  representative  agreed 
to  waive  any  technical  objection  that  might  legally  be  made  to  holding  a  recall  elec- 
tion, and  pledged  himself  to  resign  if  the  recall  election  did  not  give  him  a  majority 
of  the  votes  cast.  Oregon  Journal,  Aug.  14,  1911,  p.  i,  col.  2.  But  nothing  came 
of  this  proposition.  A  bill  which  failed  of  enactment  in  the  legislative  assembly 
of  1913  required  that  any  candidate  for  the  United  States  senate  or  the  house  of 
representatives  should,  at  the  time  of  filing  his  declaration  of  intention  to  become 
a  candidate,  sign  one  of  two  statements,  one  promising  to  resign  upon  an  adverse 
majority  vote  given  at  a  recall  election,  the  other  refusing  to  resign  in  such  a  case. 
House  Bill,  1913,  no.  236.  This  is  in  line  with  the  extra-constitutional  machinery 
formerly  used  for  the  direct  election  of  United  States  senators  and  still  used  for 
the  direct  nomination  of  president.  Compare  the  statutory  provisions  for  the 
"advisory  recall"  of  United  States  senators,  representatives,  and  district  judges, 
in  Arizona  Laws,  1912,  chs.  56,  65.  See  also  Michigan  Constitution,  art.  3,  sec.  8 
(1912) ;  Michigan  Laws,  1913,  no.  325,  sec.  2. 

9  State  v.  Harris,  Pacific  Reporter  (Oregon),  vol.  144,  p.  109  (1914). 
O 


194     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

of  supplementary  legislation.  All  of  the  supplementary  bills 
introduced  into  the  legislature  have  failed  of  enactment.1 

"Office  holders  are  not  now  chosen  for  a  definite  period  but 
only  so  long  as  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  people  are  satisfied 
with  the  way  in  which  they  discharge  their  official  duties.  .  .  . 
It  is  necessary  to  have  a  system  of  some  strength  and  stability, 
or  disintegration  and  disorder  are  likely  to  result.  .  .  .  Under 
this  recall  system,  we  may  be  thrown  in  the  throes  of  a  bitter 
campaign  at  any  time,  in  city,  county  or  state."  2  But  these 
possibilities  have  not  been  very  far  realized. 

While  the  constitutional  amendment  providing  for  the  recall 
was  yet  before  the  people,  the  recall  of  a  member  of  the  city 
council  of  Portland  was  discussed,  to  be  attempted  if  the 
amendment  should  be  approved  at  the  election.  But  apparently 
the  first  serious  attempt  to  recall  an  officer  was  made  in  Medford 
the  next  month  after  the  amendment  was  adopted.  This  was 
blocked  by  a  decision  of  the  circuit  court  holding  that  the 
amendment  was  not  operative  without  additional  legislation. 

The  first  actual  recall  election  in  Oregon  occurred  the  next  year, 
when  the  mayor  of  Junction  City  was  removed.  It  was  charged 
in  the  recall  petition  that  the  officer  was  inefficient,  immoral, 
untruthful,  and  arbitrary  in  the  exercise  of  his  authority ;  but  a 
motive  which  was  influential  at  least  to  some  extent  was  the 
hostility  of  certain  property  owners  caused  by  the  mayor's 
action  in  opening  streets  which  they  had  illegally  closed. 

The  same  year  the  mayor  and  all  five  of  the  councilmen 
of  Estacada  were  recalled.3  The  petition  declared  that  the 

1  Senate  Bill,  1911,  no.  223;  Senate  Bill,  1913,  no.  221;  Senate  Journal,  1913, 
pp.  1020-30;  Senate  Bill,  1915,  no.  61 ;  Senate  Joint  Resolution,  1915,  no.  8. 

1  Eugene  Guard,  Oct.  14,  1911,  p.  4,  col.  i. 

» This  was  the  result  according  to  the  actual  returns.  But  the  canvassers  —  the 
recalled  officers  —  denied  the  legality  of  the  election  (they  and  their  followers  gener- 
ally had  therefore  not  participated  in  the  election),  and  refused  to  canvass  the  re- 
turns. The  decision  of  the  court  in  mandamus  proceedings  brought  to  compel  such 
canvass  was  delayed  until  it  became  useless  by  the  intervention  of  the  regular  mu- 
nicipal election.  At  that  time  all  the  recalled  officers  stood  for  re-election  and  were 
all  defeated. 


The  Recall  195 

officers  had  managed  the  affairs  of  the  city  in  an  unsatisfactory 
manner,  illegally  diverted  public  funds,  repudiated  the  city 
debt,  etc.  But  the  real  cause  of  the  recall  movement  was  simply 
a  factional  fight  waged  by  two  banks  and  their  respective  sup- 
porters, which  had  divided  the  city  against  itself  ever  since  the 
second  bank  was  organized,  and  which  ceased  only  with  the 
merger  of  the  two  banks. 

In  the  same  year  the  recall  of  the  mayor  and  three  of  the 
councilmen  of  Union  was  prevented  only  by  these  officers'  going 
"through  a  regular  routine  of  resigning  and  electing  themselves 
to  other  offices."  1  While  the  ground  for  the  recall  was  as- 
serted to  be  unsatisfactory  administration,  diversion  of  public 
funds,  needless  expenditures,  abuse  of  the  emergency  clause  in 
the  enactment  of  ordinances,  impairment  of  the  public  credit, 
etc.,  the  movement  was  really  the  outcome  of  a  struggle  between 
those  who  opposed  and  those  who  favored  the  stringent  enforce- 
ment of  the  prohibition  law.  The  officers  attacked  represented 
the  prohibition  ticket  which  had  won  at  the  preceding  election. 

In  1910  the  mayor  of  Ashland  was  subjected  to  a  recall  elec- 
tion, but  the  election  resulted  in  his  favor.  The  petition  charged 
him  with  incompetency,  improper  expenditure  for  street  improve- 
ments, unwarranted  removal  of  a  city  employee,  and  favoritism 
in  committee  appointments,  although  the  real  ground  of  the 
agitation  seems  to  have  been  opposition  to  his  progressive  policy 
in  regard  to  public  improvements. 

The  next  year  a  member  of  the  city  council  of  Portland  was 
recalled  by  the  voters  of  his  ward.  Although  the  petition  for 

1  After  the  recall  petition  was  filed,  the  mayor  resigned  and  was  elected  recorder 
by  the  council.  One  of  the  councilmen  named  in  the  recall  petition  resigned  and  was 
elected  mayor  by  the  council.  The  other  two  councilmen  concerned  resigned,  and 
were  re-elected  by  the  council.  By  this  process  a  recall  election  at  the  time  was 
avoided.  And  any  further  attack  was  prevented,  because  the  date  of  the  regular 
election  came  within  the  six  months'  exemption  period  which  followed.  "  So  you  can 
see  how  easy  it  is  to  avoid  the  recall  if  the  people  interested  will  work  together," 
said  one  of  those  who  worked  together  in  this  case.  At  the  regular  election  the  whole 
ticket  which  these  officers  represented  —  some  of  them  stood  for  re-election  —  was 
defeated  on  the  recall  issue. 


196     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

his  recall  declared  simply  that  the  councilman  did  not  "faith- 
fully and  efficiently  represent"  the  interests  of  his  ward  and  city, 
the  motives  behind  the  recall  were  various.  The  officer  had 
been  inconsiderate  in  dealing  with  some  of  his  constituents  who 
desired  his  influence  in  securing  certain  action  by  the  council. 
He  had  fathered  an  ordinance  deemed  by  the  labor  unions  prej- 
udicial to  their  interests,  and  he  was  opposed  by  their  adherents 
on  this  account.  Their  candidate  won  in  the  recall  election. 
Further,  the  councilman  had  advocated  the  location  of  a  sewer 
outlet  in  a  certain  locality,  and  had  thus  aroused  the  opposition 
of  some  property  owners.  One  of  them  was  a  candidate  at  the 
recall  election.  The  councilman  had  also  incurred  the  enmity 
of  a  corporation  attorney  by  charging  the  latter  with  an  attempt 
to  bribe  him  to  drop  some  legislation  detrimental  to  the  interests 
of  the  company.  The  attorney  was  very  active  against  the 
officer  in  the  recall  campaign.  It  was  also  claimed  that  several 
corporations  which  had  suffered  from  legislation  originating 
with  the  officer  were  partly  responsible  for  his  defeat. 

In  1913  the  county  judge  of  Klamath  county  was  successful 
against  a  recall  election.  The  reasons  for  the  demand  of  the 
recall  are  declared  in  the  petition  to  be  the  following:  "unlaw- 
ful, unwise  and  inefficient  management  of  county  finances ;  the 
incurring  of  a  large  amount  of  unlawful  indebtedness ;  unneces- 
sarily increased  taxation,  waste  of  money  in  county  expenses; 
favoritism  in  contracting  with  and  employing  relatives  of  mem- 
bers of  the  county  court  and  certain  firms  and  corporations  at  a 
financial  loss  to  the  county;  unlawfully  issuing  and  selling 
warrants  of  the  county  at  a  discount;  carelessness  and  ineffi- 
ciency in  auditing  bills  against  the  county ;  accepting  employ- 
ment from  corporations  whose  interests  are  opposed  to  the 
public  interests  and  at  far  greater  salaries  than  that  paid  by  the 
county ;  inefficient  and  unsatisfactory  service  as  a  county  judge ; 
failure  to  get  value  received  for  money  spent  for  roads,  though 
petitioners  are  not  opposed  to  good  roads;  lack  of  ability,  as 
shown  in  the  past  to  expend  future  levies  for  roads ;  inability  to 


The   Recall  197 

construct  a  new  courthouse  with  economy  and  a  due  regard  for 
cost  though  petitioners  are  not  opposed  to  the  new  courthouse 
and  are  indifferent  as  to  its  location,  but  only  insist  that  it  shall 
be  built  economically  and  that  its  cost  shall  not  be  excessive, 
which  the  past  actions  of  said  officer  indicate  that  he  will  not  be 
able  to  do."  But  the  recall  movement  was  apparently  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  the  outcome  of  an  old  local  factional  fight  in- 
volving much  personal  enmity. 

The  same  year  the  county  judge  and  the  two  county  com- 
missioners of  Clackamas  county  were  defeated  at  a  recall  elec- 
tion. The  petitioners  charged  that  the  officers  had  been  careless 
and  extravagant  in  the  management  of  the  county  business  — 
more  particularly,  that  they  had  paid  three  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  for  the  examination  of  a  bridge  without  inviting  compe- 
tition, replaced  a  bridge  in  good  condition  with  a  steel  bridge 
instead  of  making  the  few  repairs  necessary  on  the  old  bridge,  built 
many  bridges  without  due  publicity  and  without  asking  for 
competitive  bids,  contracted  for  cruising  timber  at  an  excessive 
rate  without  giving  notice  that  the  contract  was  to  be  let  —  and 
had  failed  to  comply  with  the  law  defining  their  duties  in  regard 
to  roads  and  bridges.  But  it  is  somewhat  significant  that  the 
leader  in  the  recall  movement  was  a  bridge-builder  who  had 
failed  to  secure  any  of  the  bridge  contracts. 

In  the  fall  of  the  same  year  the  county  judge  and  county 
commissioners  of  Hood  River  county  were  compelled  to  face  a 
recall  election,  upon  charges  including  extravagance  in  the 
employment  of  a  county  roadmaster,1  unnecessarily  expending 
large  sums  of  money  for  improperly  oiling  roads,  paying  unitem- 
ized  claims  against  the  county,  and  paying  a  high  price  for  an 
improperly  constructed  bridge.  Here  the  leader  of  the  recall 
movement  had  been  the  county  judge's  opponent  at  the  recent 
primary  election,  and  it  is  said  that  most  of  the  road  supervisors 
of  the  county  were  opposed  to  interference  by  a  roadmaster, 

1  It  seems  that  the  recall  movement  would  have  been  dropped  if  the  court  had 
dismissed  the  roadmaster  in  accordance  with  a  petition,  "insolently  refused." 


198     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

and  aided  in  the  agitation  for  the  recall  of  the  court.  At  the  elec- 
tion all  three  of  the  officers  were  removed. 

Failure  "to  faithfully  represent"  the  people  of  their  respective 
wards  and  of  the  city  were  the  charges  in  the  petitions  which 
resulted  in  forcing  two  members  of  the  city  council  of  Salem  to 
face  a  recall  election  held  in  the  same  fall.  The  movement  was 
due  wholly  to  another  member  of  the  council,  who  had  been  dis- 
gruntled by  the  action  of  these  members  in  opposing  his  policies. 
Both  officers  were  sustained  by  large  majorities. 

Several  recall  elections  occurred  the  next  year.  First,  two 
members  of  the  city  council  of  Medford  were  thus  removed  from 
office,  on  charges  that  they  did  not  truly  represent  their  constit- 
uents and  were  generally  incompetent  and  were  guilty  of  ex- 
travagance. Very  much  complaint  of  the  officers'  general  in- 
competence and  some  charges  of  petty  grafting  had  been  made. 
The  interests  of  one  of  the  councilmen,  a  saloon  keepej ,  did  not 
accord  with  the  strict  enforcement  of  the  liquor  law,  and  the 
attack  was  first  directed  against  him.  The  recent  increase  in 
the  city  taxes  accelerated  the  movement. 

A  short  time  later  two  directors  of  the  Quincy  school  district 
in  Columbia  county  were  recalled,1  chiefly  because  of  these  offi- 
cers' refusal  to  discharge  a  teacher  accused  of  teaching  socialistic 
doctrines  to  her  pupils.  The  petition  charged  the  directors  with 
retaining  the  teacher,  knowing  her  to  be  "a  person  unfit  and 
unsuited  for  the  position"  by  reason  of  violation  of  the  statutes 
and  the  rules  of  the  state  board  of  education  in^"  neglecting  to 
inculcate  in  the  minds  of  her  pupils  correct  principles  of  morality 
and  a  proper  regard  for  the  government  under  which  they  live  " ; 
and  with  violation  of  the  law  in  failing  to  display  an  American 
flag  on  the  school  grounds,  in  employing  one  of  the  directors  for 
making  repairs  on  the  schoolhouse,  and  in  employing  his  wife 
as  janitor  of  the  building.  The  first  official  act  of  the  new  board 
was  to  discharge  the  teacher. 

1  The  adherents  of  the  officers  removed  declared  that  the  recall  election  was  ille- 
gal, and  did  not  participate  in  the  election  of  their  successors  at  the  later  election. 


The  Recall  199 

The  petition  for  the  recall  of  a  city  councilman  of  Waldport, 
ousted  the  next  month,  charged  him  with  "inability  to  conduct 
the  affairs  of  his  office  in  a  fair  and  impartial  manner."  The 
charge,  being  interpreted,  is,  apparently  in  part,  voting  for  the 
issue  of  a  saloon  license  to  an  outsider  offering  more  favorable 
terms  than  a  local  applicant. 

The  county  judge  of  Curry  county  the  same  year  was  sub- 
jected to  a  recall  election  upon  the  charge  that  he  had  been  in- 
strumental in  the  expenditure  of  public  money  "in  ways  unau- 
thorized by  law  and  of  no  benefit  to  the  people,"  that  he  had 
disregarded  the  "rights  of  petition  of  the  taxpayers"  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  certain  county  officers,  and  that  he  had  failed  to 
conduct  the  county  business  on  business  principles,  "to  the 
great  loss  of  the  taxpayers."  However,  the  real  motive  for  the 
movement  was  revenge  against  the  judge  for  his  part  in  protect- 
ing the  county  treasury  against  some  of  the  "recallers"  and  in 
disappointing  others  of  them  in  their  hopes  for  appointment 
to  office.  The  judge  was  sustained  at  the  election. 

All  of  the  members  of  the  Columbia  county  court  were  de- 
feated at  a  recall  election  held  a  few  weeks  later.  The  petitions 
alleged  that  the  officers  had  been  "selfish  and  extravagant  in  the 
management  of  the  county  business,"  and  in  proof  of  the  charges 
declared  that  the  court  had  ordered  a  road  built  which  would  be 
of  "no  practical  benefit  to  the  public,"  that  they  had  purchased 
an  expensive  machine  without  advertising,  and  that  they  had 
not  complied  with  statutes  governing  road  administration. 
But  the  recall  was  wholly  the  outcome  of  a  quarrel  between  two 
sections  of  the  county  in  regard  to  the  route  which  should  be 
followed  in  road  construction,  and  it  was  instituted  by  the 
section  not  favored  by  the  court's  decision. 

At  the  same  election  the  county  attorney  was  recalled1  on 
charges  that  he  had  not  conducted  his  office  "for  the  best  interest 

1  The  recall  of  the  county  attorney  was  nullified  by  the  supreme  court's  decision 
to  the  effect  that  in  his  case  the  recall  petition  had  not  been  filed  in  accordance  with 
the  requirements  of  law.  Later  he  resigned. 


2oo     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

and  welfare"  of  the  county,  in  that  he  had  been  "derelict  in  his 
duties,"  and  had  "allowed  personal  matters  to  interfere  with  the 
sound  judgment  at  all  times  necessary  in  the  duties  of  a  prosecut- 
ing attorney,"  and  that  he  had  "allowed  personal  preferences 
and  prejudices  to  influence  him  in  his  conduct  as  a  public  officer." 
As  a  competent  observer  puts  it,  "the  real  cause  for  his  recall 
was  the  arbitrary  manner  in  which  he  discharged  the  duties  of 
his  office,  in  utter  disregard  of  everything  and  everybody,  even 
of  the  decisions  of  the  lower  courts." 

The  recall  election  which  has  so  far  aroused  most  public  at- 
tention was  held  in  Portland  the  next  month,  when  the  mayor 
and  two  of  the  city  commissioners  were  sustained.  The  mayor 
was  charged,  in  the  recall  petition,  with  illegally  retaining  his 
position  as  manager  of  an  insurance  company  since  his  election 
to  the  office  of  mayor,  lack  of  efficiency  and  stability,  discharge 
of  competent  city  employees  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  civil- 
service  law,  and  extravagance  in  the  management  of  the  city 
business.  The  commissioners  were  charged  with  extravagance 
in  administration,  administration  detrimental  to  the  business 
and  industrial  life  of  the  city,  lack  of  efficiency,  stability  and 
good  judgment,  and  discharge  of  competent  city  employees 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  civil-service  law.  But  the  real 
motive  for  the  recall  movement  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
these  charges.  The  movement  began  virtually  with  the  elec- 
tion of  the  officers,  and  continued,  with  a  mysterious  interval  of 
quiescence,  for  months.  The  parties  responsible  for  the  move- 
ment long  remained  concealed,  and  only  a  few  of  them  later  be- 
came generally  known.  Their  chief,  and  probably  their  only 
motive  for  action  was,  apparently,  desire  for  the  spoils  of  office. 
The  officers  were  sustained  by  overwhelming  majorities  at  the 
election. 

Two  weeks  later  the  mayor  of  Florence  was  recalled.  The 
petition  declared  that  he  was  "an  unfit  person"  to  hold  the  office 
by  reason  of  his  having  illegally  authorized  the  destruction  of  a 
certain  building  belonging  to  a  private  citizen,  and,  when  judg- 


The  Recall  201 

ment  for  damages  occasioned  by  such  action  was  obtained  against 
him  by  the  owner,  having  authorized  and  voted  for  the  payment 
of  the  judgment  out  of  the  city  treasury  (in  fact  the  judgment 
was  obtained  against  the  mayor  and  another  officer  in  their  offi- 
cial capacities  and  the  city  council  authorized  the  payment  of  the 
judgment) ;  and  by  reason  of  " sundry  other  illegal  acts"  com- 
mitted by  him.  The  owner  of  the  building  was  responsible  for 
the  recall  movement,  but  some  hostility  to  the  mayor's  policy 
in  regard  to  public  improvements  and  some  old  factional  dif- 
ferences contributed  to  its  success. 

At  the  end  of  the  year  the  county  attorney  of  Tillamook 
county  was  recalled.  The  petition  charged  him  with  incompe- 
tence and  neglect  of  official  duties,  resulting  in  unnecessary  ex- 
pense to  the  county.  The  greatest  grievances  were,  apparently, 
that  he  "mixed  with  the  saloon  element,"  and  formulated  faulty 
indictments,  purposely,  it  was  believed,  in  a  number  of  criminal 
cases.1 

The  next  recall  election  was  held  late  in  the  summer  of  the 
present  year.  At  this  time  the  county  attorney  of  Wheeler 
county  was  the  object  of  the  attack.  It  was  charged  in  the 
recall  petition  that  the  officer  was  corrupt  and  incompetent, 
that  his  free  indulgence  in  strong  drink  interfered  with  the  per- 
formance of  the  duties  of  his  office,  that  he  failed  to  enforce 
the  local  option  law,  that  he  did  not  enforce  the  laws  impar- 
tially, and  that  his  incompetence  caused  the  county  a  great  deal 
of  unnecessary  expense.  Whatever  the  truth  of  these  charges, 
apparently  the  recall  movement  was  due,  in  large  part,  to 
personal  spite  against  the  officer.  He  was  successful  at  the 
election. 

In  the  seven  years  since  the  recall  amendment  was  adopted 
seventeen  recall  elections  have  been  held.  All  but  six  of  them 
have  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  officers  attacked.  Thirty- 

1  Charges  against  the  officer  were  preferred  before  the  grand  jury,  but  the  jury 
favored  removal  by  recall  rather  than  by  court  procedure,  and  the  members  them- 
selves circulated  the  recall  petitions. 


2O2     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in   Oregon 

four  officers  have  been  involved,  and  only  nine  of  them  have 
been  allowed  to  retain  office.1  Some  of  the  charges  stated  in  the 
petitions  in  these  various  cases  could  be  substantiated,  but  others 
could  not.  It  has  been  made  apparent  that  the  reasons  for  the 
demand  for  removal  did  not  usually  disclose  the  real  motives,  or 
all  of  the  real  motives  for  the  demand.  All  the  officers  involved 
have  been  local  officers.  The  county  judges  were  attacked 
as  administrative  rather  than  as  judicial  officers.2  All  of  the 
cities,  except  Portland,  are  small,  the  largest  containing  nine 
thousand  people,  and  the  smallest  about  two  hundred  and  fifty. 
The  population  of  the  counties  involved  varies  from  something 
over  two  thousand  to  nearly  thirty  thousand.  The  school  dis- 
trict contains  about  five  hundred  people. 

In  addition  to  the  movements  which  have  resulted  in  actual 
recall  elections,  many  more  or  less  serious  attempts  to  bring 
about  recall  elections  have  failed.3 

Mayors  of  cities  have  thus  been  attacked  on  charges  of  neglect 
of  the  interests  of  a  particular  district  of  a  city;  of  an  "open- 
town"  policy;  of  presence  in  a  barroom  after  legal  hours;  of 
failure  to  enforce  city  ordinances  against  vice,  extravagant  ex- 
penditure of  public  funds  without  accounting  therefor,  etc. ; 
of  usurpation  of  the  power  of  the  council,  misstatement  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  council,  etc.,  and  total  unfitness  for  office 
on  account  of  lack  of  education  and  ability ;  because  of  permit- 
ting public  speaking  on  the  streets  and  of  retaining  a  police  force 
alleged  to  be  corrupt ;  on  charges  of  failure  to  enforce  the  city 
ordinances. 

1  Many  very  erroneous  statements  as  to  the  frequency  of  the  use  of  the  recall  in 
Oregon  have  been  made  even  by  Oregonians.  E.g.,"  There  has  never  been  an  official 
recalled  in  this  state."  Governor's  Message,  Senate  Journal,  1013,  p.  1030.  And  it 
is  possible  that  the  statement  of  the  recall  elections  given  in  the  text  is  not  absolutely 
complete. 

JA  judge  and  two  commissioners  constitute  the  "county  court."  Judicial 
functions  are  performed  by  the  judge  alone.  The  judge  acts  with  the  commissioners 
in  the  administration  of  the  county  business. 

1  The  evidence  available  in  many  of  these  cases  is  very  fragmentary  and  unsatis- 
factory. 


The  Recall  203 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  remove  a  city  councilman,  on 
the  charge  of  having  ceased  to  reside  in  his  ward,  although  the 
real  cause  was  probably  that  he  voted  to  license  a  hotel  bar,  and 
there  was  hope  of  electing  as  his  successor  one  who  would  favor 
a  "dry"  town;  another  councilman,  on  the  charge  of  incompe- 
tency,  disregard  of  the  wishes  of  his  constituents,  arbitrary  and 
unreasonable  action,  personal  interest  in  certain  franchises,  and 
having  ceased  to  reside  in  his  ward,  although  his  activity  in  the 
removal  of  some  officers  really  started  the  recall  movement  (one 
of  the  deposed  officers  aided  in  circulating  the  recall  petition) ; 
another  councilman,  more  than  once,  for  refusal  to  aid  some  of 
his  constituents  in  securing  certain  desired  local  improvements 
at  the  hands  of  the  council ;  another,  because  of  his  official  op- 
position to  the  widening  and  extension  of  a  certain  street; 
another,  for  voting  for  a  public  utility  franchise  in  opposition 
to  a  demand  for  municipal  ownership  of  that  utility ;  another, 
on  charge  that  he  failed  to  represent  his  constituents,  but  used 
his  office  for  his  political  and  personal  advantage,  that  in  the 
council  he  had  favored  commercialized  vice,  that  he  aided  in  the 
repeal  of  an  initiative  bill-board  ordinance,  and  that  he  had  been 
negligent,  careless  and  indifferent  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  his  office.  Councilmen  have  been  attacked  also  for  voting 
for  a  "blanket"  franchise;  on  the  charge  of  holding  up  certain 
improvements  and  delay  in  submitting  a  new  charter. 

An  attempt  to  remove  a  school  director  was  made  because  of 
his  activity  in  locating  a  school  building  contrary  to  the  desire  of 
certain  petitioners  and  in  retaining,  also  contrary  to  the  desire 
of  petitioners,  a  teacher  who  had  dismissed  some  students  for 
disorderly  conduct  (the  father  of  one  of  these  students  managed 
the  circulation  of  the  recall  petition).  Two  other  school  direc- 
tors were  attacked  on  charges  of  inefficiency  and  of  irregularities 
in  the  awarding  of  contracts.  In  a  later  case  where  the  recall 
petition  declared  the  reason  for  the  recall  of  three  school  direc- 
tors to  be,  first,  their  refusal  to  acknowledge  a  petition,  favored 
by  most  of  the  patrons  of  the  district,  for  the  retention  of  one 


204     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

teacher  at  an  increased  salary  and  the  reduction  of  the  salary 
of  another  teacher,  and,  second,  their  making  contracts  with  a 
teacher  extending  beyond  the  directors'  term  of  office,  the 
trouble  was  started  by  the  directors'  support  of  the  teacher  last 
mentioned,  who  had  dismissed  a  pupil  for  refusal  to  "salute  the 
flag."  A  quarrel  in  another  district  over  the  question  of  the  dis- 
trict's paying  the  tuition  of  students  going  from  this  district  to  a 
high  school  in  another  district  was  the  cause  of  a  recall  movement 
against  the  two  directors  who  favored  payment  of  tuition. 

A  movement  to  recall  a  county  assessor  was  based  on  charges 
of  incompetence,  unequal  assessment,  and  casting  aspersions 
upon  the  motives  of  the  taxpayers  protesting  at  a  public  meet- 
ing against  his  assessments,  and  attempting  to  intimidate  them ; 
but  some  of  the  trouble  was  caused  by  the  assessor's  enforcement 
of  the  law  requiring  full  valuation  in  assessment. 

Attempts  to  recall  members  of  county  courts,  including 
county  judges  in  their  administrative  capacity,1  have  been 
made  on  charges  of  incompetence,  ignoring  the  express  choice 
of  the  majority  of  the  taxpayers  in  the  appointment  of  road 
supervisors,  and  squandering  money  in  unscientific  road  con- 
struction (the  increase  of  the  county  tax  levy  and  failure  properly 
to  care  for  certain  roads  seem  here  to  have  been  the  greatest 
grievances) ;  because  their  new  organization  of  road  construc- 
tion took  considerable  authority  from  the  road  supervisors, 
and  perhaps  because  of  enmity  created  by  the  removal  of  a  super- 
visor ;  because  residents  of  one  district  disapproved  of  the  com- 
missioners' improvement  of  the  roads  in  another ;  on  charges  of 
wasteful  expenditure  of  public  funds,  failure  to  publish  claims 
allowed  against  the  county,  giving  county  work  in  return  for 
political  favors,  and,  in  case  of  one  of  the  commissioners  involved, 
buying  supplies  as  a  private  dealer  and  selling  them  to  the  county 
at  greatly  increased  prices,  and  forcing  county  employees  to 
trade  at  the  commissioner's  store  (it  is  claimed  that  political 
enmity  was  back  of  the  recall  movement) ;  for  accepting  a  road 

1  Above,  p.  202,  note  3. 


The  Recall  205 

not  coining  up  to  the  specifications  of  the  contract  (the  commis- 
sioner was  believed  to  be  financially  interested  in  the  contract) ; 
on  charges  of  having  been  extravagant,  unbusinesslike  and 
careless  in  the  administration  of  county  affairs ;  on  charges  of 
favoritism  in  the  award  of  contracts  and  carelessness  in  the 
management  of  the  county  business. 

The  recall  of  one  district  attorney  was  sought  because  of 
his  discrimination  between  the  rich  and  the  poor,  protection  of 
gambling  houses  and  saloons  in  their  violation  of  the  law,  using 
his  official  position  to  serve  his  own  selfish  interests,  etc. ;  1  that 
of  another  chiefly  because  of  his  neglect  to  enforce  the  laws  con- 
trolling vice  and  the  sale  of  liquor. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  recall  a  state  senator,  who,  it  was 
charged  in  the  petition,  used  his  office  for  personal  and  political 
ends,  was  attorney  for  various  interests  inimical  to  the  public  in- 
terests and  thus  unable  impartially  to  represent  his  constituents, 
had  supported  a  bill  for  one  of  these  interests  which  abrogated  a 
law  enacted  by  the  people,  and  voted  for  the  appropriation  of  the 
people's  money  for  unnecessary  and  extravagant  uses. 

A  recall  movement  directed  against  a  sheriff  came  from 
I.  W.  W.'s  and  others  disaffected  especially  by  reason  of  the  sher- 
iff's enforcement  of  the  law  regarding  public  speaking  on  the 
streets. 

Soon  after  the  recall  amendment  was  adopted  there  was 
some  talk  of  recalling  a  circuit  judge  because  of  his  decision 
sustaining  the  legality  of  a  provision  of  a  city  charter  which 
allowed  the  sale  of  intoxicants.  But  no  serious  attempt  to  re- 
call a  judge  was  made  until  three  years  later,  when  a  petition 
for  the  recall  of  a  district  judge  was  widely  circulated,  charging 
him  with  giving,  in  a  notorious  murder  case,  partial  instructions 
which  biased  the  jury  in  favor  of  the  defendant.  Later  lawyers 

1  Recall  proceedings  in  this  case  were  delayed  by  court  proceedings  until  the 
officer's  term  had  expired.  But  he  was  a  candidate  for  re-election  at  the  primary 
election,  and  was  defeated.  It  is  very  probable  that  a  recall  election  would  have 
resulted  in  his  removal. 


206     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

started  a  recall  movement  against  a  municipal  judge  upon  the 
charges  of  bringing  convictions  without  complaints,  of  favorit- 
ism, of  illegally  releasing  prisoners  after  sentencing  them  to  long 
terms,  of  decisions  contrary  to  the  precedents  of  the  court, 
including  precedents  set  by  himself. 

"The  judiciary  is  not  so  intimately  associated  with  the  daily 
life  of  the  average  voter  as  is  the  municipal  administration."  x 
"Experience  teaches  that  if  any  one  needs  protection  from  the 
abuse  of  the  recall  it  is  the  short-term  servant  of  the  people 
whose  acts  are  more  intimately  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
people  than  the  acts  of  the  judiciary."  2  "Court  decisions  in 
which  the  people  generally  take  a  living,  active  interest  are  rare 
—  extremely  rare.  Acts  of  administrative  officers  overshadow 
them.  The  latter  deal  with  everyday  events  with  which  the 
people  are  familiar  and  concerning  which  the  people  are  more 
willing  to  risk  their  own  judgment.  The  decisions  of  widespread 
importance  generally  concern  the  constitutionality  of  some 
police  measure  or  involve  the  validity  of  some  important  govern- 
mental function.  The  public  inclination,  if  the  decision  does 
not  accord  with  public  ideas,  is  to  accept  the  decision,  provided 
confidence  in  the  court  has  not  theretofore  been  weakened,  and 
to  seek  a  change  in  the  easily-molded  constitution.  .  .  .  There 
has  been  less  trifling  with  the  recall  in  Oregon  as  applied  to  the 
judiciary  than  to  any  other  branch  of  elected  public  service.  It 
always  will  be  so.  The  principle  is  preserved,  however,  as  a 
useful  implement  for  use  in  a  possible  genuine  emergency.  The 
fact  that  its  application  is  rare  speaks  well  not  only  for  the  sanity 
of  the  people,  but  for  the  integrity  of  the  courts.  Whatever 
misgivings  there  may  be  in  Oregon  over  any  phase  of  the  Oregon 
system,  they  concern  the  judicial  recall  probably  less  than  any 
other." 3 

In  some  of  the  foregoing  cases  other  officers  would  have 
been  included  in  the  attack,  but  escaped  because  they  had  not 

1  Oregonian,  Apr.  6,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i.       *  Ibid.,  Feb.  8,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  3. 
1  Ibid.,  Apr.  26,  1914,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


The  Recall  207 

yet  held  office  for  the  minimum  period  of  six  months,  or  be- 
cause the  officers'  terms  would  soon  expire  in  any  event,  or 
because  the  "recallers"  considered  it  best  to  concentrate  their 
efforts. 

In  addition  to  the  more  or  less  serious  recall  movements, 
numerous  threats  of  recall  have  been  made,  probably  most  of 
which  nobody  has  taken  seriously. 

The  failure  of  the  large  number  of  recall  movements  to  result 
in  an  election  has  been  due  to  various  causes.  Some  of  the 
movements  have  been  stopped  before  election  on  account  of 
opinion  or  decision  to  the  effect  that  the  constitutional  provision 
for  recall  was  not  self-executing  but  required  additional  legisla- 
tion to  put  it  into  effect ; 1  and  this  doubtless  prevented  the  be- 
ginning of  more,  and  perhaps  many  more  recall  movements. 
Some  of  them  have  come  to  an  end  by  reason  of  lack  of  funds. 
Others  have  started  so  near,  or  continued  until  so  near  the  ex- 
piration of  the  officer's  term  that  the  continuance  of  the  agita- 
tion has  been  discouraged.  Probably  in  most  cases  failure  has 
been  due  to  the  general  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  movement. 
Some  of  the  officers  attacked  have  evaded  the  danger  of  a  recall 
election  by  giving  heed  to  the  "recallers'  "  demands  as  to  official 
action.  Others  have  resigned  from  office  to  save  themselves 
from  apparently  certain  defeat  at  a  recall  election. 

In  many  cases  of  recall  movements  the  grounds  for  recall  were 
doubtless  insufficient.  Of  course  the  operation  of  personal  and 
factional  interests  cannot  be  prevented  in  a  recall  election  any 
more  than  hi  any  other  election. 

What  are  the  proper  grounds  for  the  recall  of  an  official  is  a 
question  upon  which  there  must  be  much  difference  of  opinion. 
It  has  been  strongly  urged  here  that  an  officer  should  never  be 
recalled  except  upon  charges  of  misfeasance  or  malfeasance 
in  office.2  And  the  most  ardent  advocates  of  the  recall  recognize 

1  Above,  pp.  193-4. 

8  E.g.,  Oregonian,  Apr.  6,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i.  See  Washington  Constitution,  art.  i, 
sec.  33  (1912). 


208     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

the  fact  that  it  should  be  used  with  caution.  "The  recall  is  a 
good  weapon,  but  one  to  be  sparingly  used.  .  .  .  There  should 
be  but  rare  or  occasional  use  of  it,  but  the  people  would  better 
keep  it  laid  up  in  their  toolhouse  to  use  in  case  of  emergency."  1 
More  specifically,  "it  was  designed  as  a  reserve  power  of  the 
people,  to  be  used  only  against  flagrantly  incompetent,  corrupt 
or  despotic  officials,  or  those  who  proved  false  to  their  platform 
pledges."2  "Mere  difference  of  view  on  what  some  people 
think  they  ought  to  do  on  a  public  matter  is  not  sufficient 
reason  for  using  the  recall.  The  recall  was  never  intended  for 
such  use."  3  "Frequent  or  foolish  use  of  the  recall  would  create 
sentiment  against  it,  and  might  result  in  its  abandonment. 
Its  own  friends  would  forsake  it  if  by  its  over-employment  it 
should  keep  communities  in  a  state  of  turmoil  and  strife."  4 

The  subject  of  the  proper  grounds  for  a  recall  has  been  dis- 
cussed in  Oregon  chiefly  in  connection  with  criticisms  of  the  at- 
tempt to  recall  a  circuit  judge.  The  following  comments  were 
made  in  this  connection  by  a  strong  advocate  of  the  recall  as  an 
instrument  of  government.  "In  reality  it  is  not  Judge  Coke 
that  the  good  people  of  Roseburg  are  after.  Their  real  fury  is 
against  McClallen,  but  for  the  moment  it  is  Judge  Coke  that  is 
in  sight.  The  public  sympathizes  with  them  in  their  indigna- 
tion. McClallen  shot  down  a  highly  esteemed  citizen.  He 
escaped  punishment.  The  indignation  of  the  Roseburg  people 
is  a  natural  sequence.  But  it  was  not  Judge  Coke  that 
pulled  the  trigger  of  the  murderous  revolver.  McClallen  did 
that.  It  was  not  Judge  Coke  that  fixed  the  requirements  of  the 
jury  instructions  at  the  trial.  It  was  the  law  of  the  land  that  did 
that.  Parts  of  the  very  instructions  used  were  the  dictum  of 
the  Oregon  supreme  court  in  the  Morey  case.  On  sober  second 
thought,  the  Roseburg  people  must  realize  that  fury  is  being 
visited  on  the  wrong  man.  It  was  McClallen  that  killed  a  citi- 

1  Oregon  Journal,  Mar.  i,  1910,  p.  8,  col.  2.     *  Oregonian,  May  21, 1913,  p.  12,  col.  i. 
1  Oregon  Journal,  Feb.  25,  1914,  p.  6,  col.  2. 
1  Ibid.,  Aug.  16,  1911,  p.  6,  col.  I. 


The  Recall  209 

zen.  In  a  Portland  case  where  the  instructions  on  vital  points 
were  the  same  as  Judge  Coke's  the  jury  convicted.  Had  the 
two  cases  been  tried  contemporaneously,  would  the  friends  in 
one  instance  have  used  the  recall  because  one  court  convicted 
and  used  it  in  the  other  because  there  was  an  acquittal?  .  .  . 
Under  the  recall,  the  people  would  place  Judge  Coke  on  trial. 
They  would  also  have  to  try  the  McClallen  case  in  full.  They 
would  have  to  know  all  the  facts  in  detail  to  pass  an  intelligent 
opinion.  They  would  have  to  have  the  law  points  explained. 
They  would  have  to  hear  the  instructions.  They  would  have  to 
study  the  decisions  and  precedents.  They  would  also  have  to 
try  the  supreme  court  of  Oregon,  for  the  supreme  court,  in  the 
Morey  case,  affirmed,  in  effect,  the  vital  instructions  given  by 
Judge  Coke.  They  would  have  to  pass  on  the  question  of 
whether  the  supreme  court  was  right  or  wrong.  In  short,  they 
would  have  to  supersede  the  supreme  court  and  perform  the 
functions  of  super  supreme  justices.  In  exercising  the  recall  hi 
such  an  instance,  the  electors  of  the  second  district  would,  in 
effect,  assume  all  the  functions  of  one  of  the  coordinate  branches 
of  the  state  government  of  Oregon,  setting  aside  the  judiciary 
for  the  moment  and  making  each  elector  in  the  second  district 
a  super  supreme  judge,  exercising  power  above  the  judiciary 
and  above  the  constitution  itself.  .  .  .  The  people  are  not 
in  position  to  pass  upon  the  legal  questions  involved  in  the  in- 
structions to  a  jury.  They  cannot  be  constituted  and  do  not 
want  to  be  constituted  a  super  supreme  court,  superseding  and 
setting  aside  the  constitutional  supreme  court.  They  are  sane 
and  sound  in  their  judgments  on  ordinary  issues,  but  they  never 
have  claimed  nor  never  will  claim  that  they  are  all  skilled  in  the 
law.  ...  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  it  is  as  the  confusion 
of  tongues  at  the  Tower  of  Babel  for  an  electorate  of  laymen 
to  attempt  determination  of  whether  a  judge  is  right  or  wrong 
on  a  legal  question.  ...  If  a  judge  goes  on  the  bench  in  a  state 
of  intoxication ;  if  a  judge  permits  a  railroad  attorney  to  finance 
his  campaign  .  .  . ;  if  a  judge  becomes  a  known  corruptionist,  a 


2io     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

political  trickster  or  dissolute  in  his  habits,  then  he  is  within  the 
scope  of  what  prudent  men  accept  as  possible  reason  for  invok- 
ing the  recall."  1 

A  short  time  before  this  recall  movement  began  it  was  said : 
"The  presence  in  the  Oregon  constitution  of  the  judicial  recall 
for  more  than  two  years  and  the  failure  here  to  experience  the 
dire  results  predicted  by  the  eastern  press  is  fairly  conclusive 
of  one  of  two  things.  Either  judges  are  very  rarely  compelled, 
in  deciding  cases  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence,  to 
ruffle  public  sentiment,  or  else  the  public  is  capable,  even  though 
ruffled,  of  discerning  between  a  strict  judicial  duty  and  venality 
or  incompetence.  .  .  .  But  so  far  the  recall  has  not  been  used 
.  .  .  against  the  judiciary.  True,  we  have  never  had  a  Schmitz 
liberated  through  sheerest  technicalities  nor  the  popular  will 
grossly  subverted.  We  believe,  however,  that  if  the  courts 
declared  some  popular  law  unconstitutional,  the  people  would 
not  seek  to  recall  the  court  in  the  absence  of  evidence  of  corrup- 
tion, but  would  amend  the  constitution  through  the  initiative. 
.  .  .  Probably  the  recall  will  never  be  invoked  in  Oregon 
against  a  judge  unless  corruption  is  charged."  2 

It  might  be  contended  that  where  the  movement  against  a 
member  of  the  judiciary  is  organized  and  guided  by  lawyers, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  municipal  judge,  there  is  possibly  less  dan- 
ger that  the  "electorate  of  laymen"  will  go  wrong  in  determining 
the  question  of  recall. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  law  does  not  limit  the  statement 
of  reasons  for  the  demand  of  recall  to  "justifiable"  reasons,3 
and  that  it  thus  opens  the  way  for  grave  abuse.  Some  change 
here  might  well  enough  be  made,  but  how  effective  any  such 
limitation  as  to  reasons  would  be  is  doubtful,  since,  in  practice, 

1  Oregon  Journal,  July  7,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  July  13,  ign,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  June  19, 
1911,  p.  8,  col.  i ;  Sept.  8,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  3.  "If  the  decision  is  indicative  of  gross 
ignorance  or  corruption  .  .  .  the  judge  ought  to  be  recalled."  Oregonian,  Apr.  26, 
1914,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  i.  *  Oregonian,  Feb.  18,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  3. 

*  Malfeasance  or  misfeasance  in  office.  Washington  Laws,  1913,  ch.  146,  sees,  n, 
13. 


The  Recall  211 

as  has  been  observed,1  the  actual  reasons  for  the  recall  movement 
may  be  different  from  the  reasons  named  in  the  recall  petition. 

It  is  possible  that  a  recall  petition,  based  upon  good  grounds 
or  not,  may  be  circulated,  and  then  when  completed  or  nearly 
completed,  be  put  in  "cold  storage"  to  await  a  more  convenient 
opportunity  for  a  sudden  assault  upon  the  officer  involved. 
And,  whether  or  not  the  petitions  were  originally  circulated  with 
this  end  in  view,  there  are  cases  in  which  the  uncertainty  of  the 
officer's  position  has  been  thus  continued  for  a  considerable 
period  of  time.  "A  plan  of  securing  petitions  and  holding  them 
indefinitely,  to  be  filed  at  the  whim  of  a  few  wire  pullers,  is  ab- 
surd. Such  a  program  could  be  employed  to  bully  and  control 
officials.  No  little  group  of  men  should  be  permitted  to  hold 
such  petitions  in  their  hands,  to  be  used  as  a  means  of  influencing 
affairs  at  the  city  hall.  No  more  dangerous  program  could  be 
introduced  into  municipal  or  other  government.  Recall  peti- 
tions should  be  filed  and  an  election  be  brought  when  sufficient 
names  are  secured,  or  they  should  be  destroyed.  Possession  of 
them  by  designing  men  for  long  periods,  is  an  unjust  and  danger- 
ous business.  It  gives  them  a  power  that  should  not  be  allowed 
to  exist  in  organized  government."  2  This  abuse  could  be  pre- 
vented by  a  provision  of  law  requiring  that  the  petitions  should 
be  dated  the  day  of  their  first  circulation  and  be  filed  within  a 
certain  period  after  that  day. 

In  general,  the  recall  campaigns  are  carried  on  much  in  accord- 
ance with  the  methods  prevailing  hi  case  of  direct  legislation. 

The  management  of  recall  movements  has  been  undertaken 
either  by  organizations  already  in  existence  —  labor  unions  and 
various  kinds  of  civic  betterment  clubs  —  or  by  temporary 
groups,  large  or  small,  formed  for  the  occasion,  or  by  individuals. 
Sometimes  mass  meetings  have  been  called  and  committees  ap- 
pointed to  conduct  the  campaign,  or  one  member  of  a  group  has 
been  designated  for  this  purpose.  In  cases  where  large  numbers 
of  signatures  are  required  on  the  petitions  sometimes  paid  man- 

1  Above,  p.  202.  2  Oregon  Journal,  May  10,  1914,  sec.  2,  p.  4,  col.  i. 


212     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

agers  have  been  employed.  The  petitions  are  circulated  either 
by  paid  circulators  or  gratuitously  by  persons  sufficiently  in- 
terested in  the  cause.  They  are  circulated,  as  in  the  case  of  ini- 
tiative and  referendum  petitions,  at  all  sorts  of  places.  The 
expenses  are  paid  by  private  subscription.  In  some  cases 
counter-petitions  have  been  circulated  against  proposed  recalls. 

As  in  the  case  of  direct  legislation,1  there  has  been  some 
concealment  of  the  parties  actually  responsible  for  recall  move- 
ments, and  gross  frauds  have  been  perpetrated  by  some  cir- 
culators of  recall  petitions.  And,  in  general,  the  abuses  preva- 
lent in  the  circulation  of  recall  petitions  are  the  same,  in  kind 
though  apparently  not  in  extent,  as  in  the  circulation  of  petitions 
for  direct  legislation.2 

As  a  check  upon  abuse  of  the  recall,  some  of  its  leading  advo- 
cates have  considered  that  it  might  be  well  to  amend  the  law  to 
increase  the  percentage  of  signatures  now  required  for  the 
filing  of  petitions.3  But  this  would  seem  to  be  unwise.4  A 
more  rational  change  would  be  to  reform  the  method  of  securing 
the  signatures.  Although  it  is  probably  true  that  people  do  not 
sign  recall  petitions  thrust  before  them  on  the  streets  and  else- 
where as  readily  as  they  do  initiative  and  referendum  petitions, 

1  Above,  pp.  13-16. 

2  Above,  pp.  65-8. 

In  upholding  the  character  of  the  circulators  employed  in  a  certain  recall  campaign 
the  manager  wrote :  "  One  of  the  most  active  solicitors  for  signatures  is  a  widow,  the 
mother  of  three  young  boys  dependent  upon  her  for  support.  Her  taxes  on  her  little 
home,  her  street  assessments  and  other  obligations  weigh  upon  her  slender  resources 
heavily.  .  .  .  Another  is  a  modest  little  woman  with  an  invalid  mother  to  support. 
Another  is  the  wife  of  a  mechanic.  Both  are  trying  to  pay  for  little  homes  in  the 
country.  Another  is  a  young  woman  trying  to  help  out  a  family  purse  that  has  been 
well  flattened  out  these  recent  months  by  high  taxes  and  misfortunes.  Others  are 
volunteers  among  the  most  respectable  in  the  city,  who  are  working  for  what  they 
consider  a  good  cause."  A.  D.  Cridge,  Oregonal  Journal,  Feb.  25, 1914,  p.  6,  col.  5. 

A  councilman  reports  that  an  agent  of  a  corporation  threatened  to  circulate  recall 
petitions  against  him  with  the  aid  of  the  many  employees  of  the  company  unless  he 
dropped  certain  proposed  legislation  hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  company. 

*  A  bill  introduced  in  the  legislative  assembly  of  1913  prohibiting  giving  or  accept- 
ing pay  for  securing  names  to  recall  petitions  failed  of  enactment.  Senate  Bill, 
1913,  no.  221.  Cf.  Washington  Laws,  1913,  ch.  146,  sec.  16.  *  Above,  pp.  62-4. 


The  Recall  213 

nevertheless  under  the  present  system  there  is  great  probability 
that  accommodating  persons  will  by  their  signatures  aid  a 
movement  for  the  merits  of  which  they  care  nothing.1  For 
this  reason,  and  also  as  a  guard  against  fraud,  the  circulation 
of  petitions,  whether  paid  or  voluntary,  should  be  prohibited, 
and  provision  made  for  signature  at  public  offices  or  other 
proper  places.  "The  only  possible  excuse  for  the  recall  is  that 
it  should  be  spontaneous  and  that  each  signer  should  be  suffi- 
ciently interested  to  go  to  some  public  office  and  sign  the  peti- 
tion —  not  wait  to  have  it  shoved  into  his  hand  with  a  '  Sign 
here'  from  a  5-cents-a-name  getter."2  But  the  requirement 
for  signature  at  a  public  office  or  other  proper  place  should  doubt- 
less be  accompanied  with  a  reduction  of  the  percentage  of  signa- 
tures now  required  for  filing  petitions.3  In  general,  the  recall 
needs  the  same  safeguards  as  does  direct  legislation. 

The  expenses  of  the  recall  election  —  both  to  the  public  and 
to  candidates  —  have  doubtless  had  considerable  effect  in  dis- 
couraging recall  movements.  The  six-months'  exemption  pro- 
vision has  operated  as  a  check  in  at  least  several  cases,  and 
possibly  some  danger  of  action  for  libel  —  threatened  in  a  few 
cases  —  has  sometimes  discouraged  the  circulation  of  petitions. 
The  difficulty  of  persuading  suitable  candidates  to  oppose 
the  incumbent  has  prevented  action  in  some  cases.  Especially 
is  this  the  case  of  course  where  officers  are  attacked  without 
good  cause.  "  Is  there  wonder  that  self-respecting  men  refuse  to 
become  recall  candidates  against  them?  The  very  injustice 
of  the  thing  would  bring  odium  upon  the  recall  candidates, 
drive  thousands  of  votes  to  the  present  officials  and  throw 
the  recall  into  disrepute."4  Where  the  offense  has  been  a 

1  "A  man  may  go  down  the  street  any  time  and  get  signers  to  a  petition  to  hang 
some  one.  There  is  always  a  large  per  cent  of  the  people  against  any  officer."  J.  C. 
McCue,  house  of  representatives,  Oregonian,  Feb.  21,  1007,  p.  7,  col.  i. 

1  Oregonian,  Aug.  23,  1913,  p.  8,  col.  4.  See  also  Oregonian,  Mar.  22,  1912,  p.  12, 
col.  2.  Above,  pp.  74-6.  See  Washington  Laws,  1915,  ch.  55,  sec.  4.  *  Above,  p.  75. 

4  Oregon  Journal,  Apr.  25,  1914,  p.  4,  col.  i.  See  also  Oregonian,  Apr.  26,  1914, 
sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


214     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

legislative  act  the  possibility  of  invoking  the  referendum  has 
doubtless  diminished  demand  for  recall  to  some  extent.  The 
"unwholesome  notoriety"  brought  upon  the  community  by 
recall  movements  has  doubtless  had  some  conservative  effect. 
"The  good  sense  of  the  electors"  is  of  course  the  chief  reliance 
of  the  advocates  of  this  instrument  of  government  against  any 
danger  from  its  unwarranted  use. 

When  the  official  attacked  is  recalled  at  the  election,  it  may 
be  impossible  to  determine  whether  he  was  deposed  upon  the 
grounds,  asserted  or  real,  which  caused  the  demand  for  the 
recall.  For  at  the  election  he  must,  under  the  present  provisions 
of  the  law,  at  the  same  time  justify  his  official  conduct,  compete 
with  the  political  ambitions  of  the  other  candidates,  and  face 
any  personal  opposition  by  the  voters.  There  "are  represented 
as  important  factors  in  the  recall  .  .  .  caprice  of  the  public, 
immaterial  and  extraneous  issues,1  politics,  personal  revenge  and 
deliberate  misrepresentation.  ...  It  is  unjust,  it  is  degrading, 
it  is  inimical  to  his  independence,  that  he  should  be  compelled 
to  defend  his  acts  or  policies  or  decisions  with  one  hand  and  com- 
bat political  ambition  and  personal  popularity  of  candidates  who 
may  oppose  him  with  the  other."  2  This  is  the  case  especially 
where,  as  has  sometimes  occurred,  there  are  several  candidates 
for  the  same  office  at  the  recall  election. 

Of  course  no  provision  of  law  can  entirely  segregate  the  proper 
issue  of  the  recall  election,  but  something  may  be  done  in  this 
direction  by  changing  the  law  so  that  only  the  question  of  the 
recall  of  the  officer  shall  come  officially  before  the  voters  at  the 
election.  "Divorce  .  .  .  can  probably  only  come  through 
making  the  recall  a  real  impeachment  by  the  people  on  specific 
charges  of  misconduct  and  on  them  alone,  without  the  selection 
of  a  successor  of  the  accused  officer  being  involved  in  the  pro- 

1  "The  candidate  for  county  judge,  in  answer  to  many  questions,  admitted  that 
he  knew  nothing  about  the  facts  of  the  recall  petition,  and  agreed  with  the  county 
court  in  building  the  road  through  St.  Helens,  for  which  the  court  is  being  recalled." 
Oregonian,  Sept.  20,  1914,  sec.  i,  p.  16,  col.  5. 

*0regonian,  Aug.  30,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  i;  Aug.  16,  1911,  p.  8,  col.  i. 


The  Recall  215 

ceeding."  l  The  succession  to  office  should  be  determined  in 
the  same  manner  as  in  the  case  of  vacancies  in  office  caused  by 
death  or  resignation.2  A  later  special  election  would  not  serve 
the  purpose.  For  it  is  usually  inexpedient  to  circulate  recall 
petitions  before  a  suitable  opposition  candidate  is  found,  and 
thus  the  issue  of  candidates  and  the  issue  of  the  recall  would 
necessarily  be  confused  as  much  as  under  the  present  system.3 

The  recent  change  in  the  form  of  the  recall  ballot,  whereby  the 
question  of  recall  and  the  question  of  succession  to  office  are 
separately  stated,  and  the  people  thus  enabled  "to  vote  directly 
upon  the  unadulterated  question  of  recalling  an  incumbent  of  a 
public  position,"  4  is  a  distinct  aid,  when  there  are  several  can- 
didates, toward  making  the  recall  a  more  efficient  means  of  de- 
ciding the  issue  properly  involved.  In  one  election  under  the 
old  form,  where  several  opponents  to  the  incumbent  appeared, 
he  was  defeated  by  a  candidate  who  received  1185  out  of  a  total 
of  4237  votes,  only  twenty- two  more  than  received  by  the  in- 
cumbent.6 The  chances  of  the  failure  of  the  election  really  to 
decide  the  recall  issue  would  be  reduced,  without  separating  the 
two  questions  on  the  ballot,  by  the  substitution  of  some  form 
of  majority  vote,  for  the  plurality  vote  allowed  to  decide  the 
election.  The  "  preferential "  system  of  voting  has  been  adopted 

lOregonian,  Aug.  30,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  i. 

1  Cf.  ibid.,  Oct.  31,  191 1,  p.  10,  col.  3 ;  May  22,  1914,  p.  10,  col.  2.  So  provided 
by  Washington  Laws,  1913,  ch.  146. 

1  The  Quincy  district  directors  were  recalled  at  one  election,  and  their  successors 
chosen  at  another.  But  the  supporters  of  the  recalled  officers  maintained  that  the 
recall  was  illegal,  and  refused  to  participate  in  the  second  election.  The  Michigan 
statute  requires  the  question  of  recall  and  the  question  of  succession  to  office  to  be 
decided  at  separate  elections.  Michigan  Laws,  1913,  no.  325.  See  also  proposed 
Minnesota  Constitution,  art.  7,  sec.  10,  rejected  (1914). 

*  State  v.  Barbur,  Pacific  Reporter  (Oregon),  vol.  144,  pp.  126,  127  (1914). 

8  The  California  plan  (California  Constitution,  art.  23,  sec.  i,  1911),  which  sepa- 
rates the  two  questions  on  the  ballot,  but  which  does  not  allow  the  incumbent  to  be- 
come a  candidate,  makes  matters  worse  than  they  were  under  the  old-style  Oregon 
ballot.  "It  is  stated  by  the  proponents  of  the  California  recall  that  under  that  sys- 
tem a  majority  vote  is  required  to  recall  an  official.  There  is  another  way  of  stating 
this  proposition.  A  majority  in  an  election  is  one  vote  more  than  half  the  total  vote 
cast.  If  it  requires  a  majority  to  recall  an  official  it  also  is  essential  that  an  official 


216     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

for  the  election  of  the  Portland  mayor  and  commissioners.1 
In  the  past  "recallers"  have,  apparently,  generally  been  anxious 
enough  to  unite  all  opposing  forces  lest  a  multiplicity  of  candi- 
dates might  operate  to  the  advantage  of  the  incumbent. 

The  interest  of  the  voters  in  some  recall  elections  has  been 
intense  —  in  a  few  cases  the  vote  cast  at  the  election  being  in 
excess  of  the  registered  vote;  but  in  others  there  has  been 
much  apathy  on  the  part  of  the  voters  —  less  than  a  third  of  the 
registered  vote  being  cast  in  some  cases.2  In  some  cases  the 
election  has  come  at  the  same  time  as  a  general  or  a  primary 
election,  or  measures  have  been  submitted  to  the  voters  at  the 
same  time,  and  thus  other  interests  have  been  involved. 

"The  merit  of  the  recall  lies  in  its  swift  and  admirable  method 
of  removing  from  office  the  corrupt  or  grossly  unfaithful  incum- 
bent. It  acts  when  his  malfeasance  or  misfeasance  or  crimes 
or  misdemeanors  become  generally  known.  His  trial  neither 
awaits  the  legislature,  there  to  displace  other  legislative  functions, 
nor  encounters  the  law's  delays,  nor  is  it  postponed  until  his  term 
expires.  It  is  a  workable  substitute  for  impeachment  and  other 

under  recall  must  gain  a  majority  of  the  votes  in  order  to  hold  his  job.  He  may  have 
been  elected  by  a  bare  plurality,  but  if  his  policy  in  office  is  attacked  by  recall  petition, 
a  plurality  in  the  recall  election  will  not  save  him.  He  must  then  defeat  his  combined 
opponents.  .  .  .  Instead  of  removing  the  recall  from  political  manipulation,  the 
California  plan  would  only  thrust  it  deeper  in  the  mire.  No  matter  what  the  charge 
recited  in  the  recall  petition,  its  filing  would  be  an  invitation  to  the  office-hungry  to 
seek  the  job  of  the  officer  attacked.  The  more  candidates  the  better  chance  each 
would  have,  and  the  greater  the  chances  that  the  incumbent  would  be  removed." 
Oregonian,  Oct.  31,  1911,  p.  10,  col.  3. 

1  The  People's  Power  League  of  Oregon  in  1912  suggested  a  modification  of  the 
California  plan  in  providing  for  a  system  of  preferential  voting  on  candidates  at  the 
recall  election  and  thus  avoiding  plurality  elections.  People's  Power  League,  In- 
troductory Letter,  1911,  pp.  9-10,  24.  Further,  see  W.  S.  U'Ren,  Text  for  Recall 
Amendment,  Equity,  vol.  13,  p.  8  (1913). 

1  "The  duty  to  vote  on  such  issues  is  as  grave  as  duty  to  vote  at  a  general  election. 
The  people  in  adopting  the  recall  expressed  a  willingness  to  sit  as  jurors  on  the 
efficiency  of  their  servants  if  called  upon  to  do  so  by  a  small  percentage  of  their  num- 
ber. .  .  .  No  matter  what  merit  there  may  have  been  in  this  particular  recall  the 
indifference  of  the  large  body  of  voters  therein  will  give  encouragement  to  selfish 
or  venomous  effort  on  the  part  of  a  few  to  instigate  recall  proceedings  against 
worthy  officials."  Oregonian,  Aug.  18,  1913,  p.  6,  col.  2. 


The  Recall  217 

ponderous,  obstructive  and  ineffective  methods  of  ridding  office 
of  undesirables."  l 

Opinions  widely  differ  as  to  the  effects  of  the  institution  upon 
the  conduct  of  officers.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  claimed  "its  mere 
availability  is  a  deterrent  to  sane  officials  to  keep  within  the 
bounds  of  official  duty."  2  On  the  other  hand  it  has  been  said 
that  "  the  recall  .  .  .  exerts  no  corrective  influence  over  officials 
that  the  laws  against  official  corruption  and  the  controlling  power 
of  public  sentiment  do  not."  3  In  fact  it  seems  that  at  least  on 
some  occasions  the  serious  threat  of  a  recall  has  prevented,  or 
has  helped  to  prevent,  official  "sins  of  commission";  and  it 
may  be,  of  course,  that  much  official  corruption  or  delinquency 
has  been  prevented  by  a  deterrent  influence  of  the  recall  law. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  possibility  of  a  recall  has  probably 
caused  some  "sins  of  omission." 

Where  the  recall  issue  is  a  permanent  one,  as  it  has  been  in 
some  cases,  of  course  a  recall  election  only  furnishes  additional 
opportunity  for  the  temporary  settlement  of  that  issue.  Limited 
to  such  cases,  this  opinion  is  correct :  "In  a  state  where  there  are 
frequent  elections  —  for  most  officials  the  term  is  but  two  years 
—  the  'recall'  established  by  law  is  frequent  enough.  If  the 
people  are  dissatisfied  with  the  official  they  need  not  re-elect 
him."  4 

But  the  terms  of  office  in  Oregon  are  now  generally  too  short, 
and  the  adoption  of  the  recall  has  opened  the  way  for  an  increase 
in  the  length  of  terms 6  —  an  important  reform  apparently 
otherwise  impossible.  And  another  reform,  the  movement  for 
which  is  continually  becoming  stronger,  the  "short  ballot," 
would  not  be  practicable  without  this  means  of  correcting  the 
possible  abuse  of  power  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  few  offi- 
cials. The  "short  ballot"  would,  on  the  other  hand,  by  fixing 

1  Oregonian,  Feb.  24,  igi3,  p.  6,  col.  4. 
1  Oregon  Journal,  Aug.  16,  1911,  p.  6,  col.  i. 

'Oregonian,  Feb.  25,  1910,  p.  10,  col.  2.      *  Ibid.,  Oct.  26,  1909,  p.  10,  col.  2. 
6  "Adoption  of  the  recall  system  has  counteracted  all  necessity  for  short  terms  in 
county  office."    Oregonian,  Nov.  i,  1914,  sec.  3,  p.  6,  col.  i. 


2i 8     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

more  definitely  the  responsibility  for  official  conduct,  render  the 
recall  a  much  more  effective  instrument  of  government. 

Apprehensions  of  recall  have  had  apparently  no  effect  in  dis- 
couraging candidates,  whatever  the  quality,  from  seeking  office. 

It  has  been  feared  that  the  possibility  of  getting  rid  of  obnox- 
ious officials  by  recalling  them  might  tend  to  make  the  voters 
more  careless  in  the  choice  of  officials.  "The  fact  that  an  officer 
can  be  recalled  will  tend  to  lessen  the  care  that  should  be  exer- 
cised in  his  selection,  which  will  lead  to  farther  recall,  thus  set- 
ting up  a  vicious  circle."  l  But  it  can  hardly  be  said  there  is 
any  evidence  that  carelessness  of  the  voters  is  thus  increased,  al- 
though it  is  true  that  voters  are  at  times  urged  by  the  press  to 
give  careful  consideration  to  the  merits  of  candidates  and  not  to 
trust  to  the  possibility  of  recall  after  their  election  in  case  they 
should  be  mistaken  in  their  choice. 

ft.  The  discord  apparent  in  recall  movements,  and  the  actual  or 
threatened  violence  which  has  accompanied  a  few  of  them,  can- 
not be  justly  charged  as  caused  by  the  recall. 

Even  if  there  were  no  inherent  difficulties  —  in  fact  to  some 
extent  insurmountable  —  in  the  way  of  knowing  adequately 
the  effects  of  the  recall  in  operation,  our  experience  is  yet  too 
limited  to  justify  any  positive  general  conclusion  as  to  the  merits 
of  the  institution.  As  above  observed,  the  legal  status  of  the 
recall  provision  has  been  until  recently  uncertain,  and  it  is  im- 
possible to  say  to  what  extent  this  uncertainty  has  prevented 
the  use  of  the  recall 2  for  good  or  for  evil.  But  it  is  certain  that 
the  recall  has  been  greatly  abused.  It  has  often  been  denounced 
in  strong  terms  by  its  opponents,  although  they,  like  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  system  of  direct  legislation,  have  now,  apparently, 
for  the  most  part,  accepted  the  inevitable.  It  has  been  as  often 
extravagantly  praised  by  its  friends;  but,  whatever  are  its 
merits,  the  democratic  character  of  the  recall  has  very  much 
more  to  do  with  its  popularity  than  any  of  its  practical  results 
thus  far  in  evidence. 

1 J.  R.  Kendall,  Oregonian,  Aug.  4,  19".  P-  6,  col.  6.        *  Above,  pp.  193-4.  a°7- 


PART   III 
APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 

I.     BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American  Commonwealth  Where  the  People  Really  Ride,  Arena,  vol.  35, 

pp.  523-6  (1906). 

ALBERTSON,  R.,  New  Oregon  Law,  Arena,  vol.  38,  pp.  98-100  (1907). 
ALBERTSON,  R.,  Oregon  Aroused,  Arena,  vol.  39,  pp.  227-8  (1908). 
ALBERTSON,  R.,  Oregon  Election,  Arena,  vol.  40,  pp.  245-6  (1908). 
BARNETT,  J.  D.,  Operation  of  the  Recall  in  Oregon,  American  Political 

Science  Review,  vol.  6,  pp.  41-53  (1912). 
BONYNGE,  R.  W.,  Political  Innovations,  Forum,  vol.  45,  pp.  645-50 

(1911). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Functions  of  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Annals 

of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  vol.  43, 

pp.  3-16  (1912). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Initiative,  Referendum,  Recall,  Case  and  Comment,  vol.  18, 

pp.  293-8  (1911). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall,  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol. 

109,  pp.  122-31  (1912). 

BOURNE,  J.,  New  Independence,  Collier's,  vol.  45,  p.  13  (1910). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Oregon's  Struggle  for  Purity  in  Politics,  Independent, 

vol.  68,  pp.  1374-8  (1910). 
BOURNE,  J.,  People's  Rule  in  Oregon,   Equity,  vol.   12,  pp.  97-8 

(1910). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Popular  Government  in  Oregon,  Outlook,  vol.  96,  pp.  321- 

30  (1910). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Popular  versus  Delegated  Government,  Senate  Doc.,  No. 

524,  6ist  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  (1910). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Practical  Conservation  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  Twentieth 

Century  Magazine,  vol.  3,  pp.  132-4  (1910). 
BOURNE,  J.,  Where  the  People  Rule,  Columbian  Magazine,  vol.  3,  pp. 

821-32  (1911). 

331 


222     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

BOYLE,  J.,  Initiative  and  Referendum,  3d  ed.  (1912). 
BURNETT,  G.  H.,  Recent  Legislation,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar 
Association,  1904-6,  pp.  17-25. 

CADMAN,  J.  P.,  Oregon  Democracy  in  Action,  Public,  vol.  14,  pp.  40-2 

(1911). 
CAREY,  C.  H.,  New  Responsibilities  of  Citizenship,  Proceedings  of  the 

Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  18-41  (1909). 
CHAMBERLAIN,  G.  E.,  Speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  Apr.  17, 

1911. 

CRIDGE,  A.  D.,  Lessons  of  the  Election,  Equity,  vol.  17,  pp.  54-7  (1915). 
CRLDGE,  A.  D.,  Why  so  Many  Measures  in  Oregon,  Equity,  vol.  14, 

pp.  132-3  (1912). 

DECou,  E.  E.,  Oregon:  The  Home  of  Direct  Legislation,  World  To-day, 

vol.  15,  pp.  857-60  (1908). 
Democracy  and  the  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Review  of  Reviews,  vol.  35, 

pp.  748-51  (1907)- 

Direct  Legislation,  Review  of  Reviews,  vol.  38,  pp.  20-1  (1908). 
Direct  Legislation  in  Oregon,  Arena,  vol.  38,  pp.  80-5  (1907). 
Direct  Legislation  Methods,  Direct  Legislation  Record,  vol.  8,  p.  18 

(1901). 
DUNIWAY,  R.  R.,  Direct  Legislation  Revolutionary,  Case  and  Comment, 

vol.  18,  pp.  319-23  (1911). 

EATON,  A.  H.,  Oregon  System  (1912). 

EGGLESTON,  W.  G.,  People's  Power  in  Oregon,  World's  Work,  vol.  22, 

PP-  I43S3-9  (1911)- 

EGGLESTON,  W.  G.,  and  others,  People's  Power  (1910). 
EGGLESTON,  W.  G.,  and  others,  People's  Power  and  Public  Taxation, 

3d  ed.  (1910). 

FORD,  H.  J.,  Facts  about  the  Oregon  System,  Journal  of  Accountancy, 
vol.  12,  pp.  85-94  (1911). 

FOXCROFT,  F.,  Constitution-Mending  and  the  Initiative,  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  97,  pp.  792-6  (1906). 

FOXCROFT,  F.,  Initiative  —  Referendum  in  the  United  States,  Con- 
temporary Review,  vol.  99,  pp.  11-19  (I911)- 


Appendix  223 

FULTON,  C.  W.,  People  as  Legislators,  North  American  Review,  vol. 
185,  pp.  69-74  (1907)- 

GALBREATH,  C.  B.,  Provisions  for  State-Wide  Initiative  and  Referendum, 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science, 
vol.  43,  pp.  81,  91-8  (1912). 

Government  by  the  People  in  Oregon,  Equity,  vol.  12,  pp.  143-6  (1910). 

HAYNES,  G.  H.,  Education  of  Voters,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  vol. 

22,  pp.  484-97  (1907)- 
HAYNES,  G.  H.,  "People's  Rule"  in  Oregon,  Political  Science  Quarterly, 

vol.  26,  pp.  32-62  (1911). 
HAYNES,  G.  H.,  People's  Rule  on  Trial,  Political  Science  Quarterly, 

vol.  28,  pp.  18-33  (iQ^)- 
HEDGES,  G.  L.,  Where  the  People  Rule  (1914). 
HENDRICK,  B.  J.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  and  How  Oregon  Got  Them, 

McClure's  Magazine,  vol.  37,  pp.  234-48  (1911). 
HENDRICK,  B.  J.,  Law-Making  by  the  Voters,  McClure's  Magazine, 

vol.  37,  pp.  435-So  (1911)- 
HENDRICK,  B.  J.,  "Statement  No.  i,"  McClure's  Magazine,  vol.  37, 

pp.  505-19  (1911)- 

HOLLINGWORTH,  C.  M.,  Oregon  Plan  (1911). 

HOLMAN,  F.  V.,  Results  in  Oregon,  Chicago  Civic  Federation's  Bulletin, 
No.  3,  pp.  10-22  (1911). 

HOLMAN,  F.  V.,  Some  Instances  of  Unsatisfactory  Results  under  Initia- 
tive Amendments  of  the  Oregon  Constitution  (1910). 

HOWE,  F.  C.,  Oregon  the  Most  Complete  Democracy  in  the  World, 
Hampton's  Magazine,  vol.  26,  pp.  459-72  (1911). 

Independent  Voting  in  Oregon,  Review  of  Reviews,  vol.  34,  p.  143  (1906). 

KENNAN,  G.,  Direct  Rule  of  the  People,  North  American  Review,  vol. 

198,  pp.  145-60  (1913). 
KING,  J.,  Concerning  the  Cost  of  Petitions,  Equity,  vol.  14,  pp.  18-22 

(1912). 
KING,  J.,  How  Oregon  "Stood  Pat,"  Twentieth  Century  Magazine,  vol. 

4,  pp.  114-20  (19"). 
KING,  J.,  Oregon  Makes  Answer,  La  Follette's  Magazine,  Dec.  31, 

1910. 


224     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

KING,  J.,  Safeguarding  Petitions,  Equity,  vol.  16,  pp.  80-5  (1914). 
KITTLE,  W.,  Putting  Government  in  People's  Hands,  La  Follette's 
Magazine,  vol.  2,  pp.  7-8  (1910). 

LA  ROCHE,  W.  P.,  Constitution  and  Convention,  Proceedings  of  the 
Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  139-47. 

LOWELL,  A.  L.,  Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Government  (1913). 

LOWELL,  S.  A.,  Direct  Legislation,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  As- 
sociation, 1898-9,  pp.  60-71. 

McARTHUR,  C.  N.,  Need  of  a  Constitutional  Convention,  Proceedings 
of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association,  1908-10,  pp.  148-65. 

McCALL,  S.  W.,  Representative  as  Against  Direct  Government,  Pro- 
ceedings of  Ohio  State  Bar  Association,  1911,  pp.  67-89. 

McCALL,  S.  W.,  Representative  as  Against  Direct  Government,  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  108,  pp.  454-66  (1911). 

McCuLLOCH,  C.  H.,  People's  Rule  in  Oregon,  Arena,  vol.  41,  pp.  461-6 
(1909). 

MINOR,  W.,  Closing  Address,  Proceedings  of  the  Oregon  Bar  Association, 
1908-10,  pp.  166-76. 

MONTAGUE,  R.  W.,  Oregon  System  at  Work,  National  Municipal  Re- 
view, vol.  3,  pp.  256-83  (1914). 

Most  Important  Political  Event  of  the  Year,  Arena,  vol.  36,  pp.  186-8 
(1906). 

News  from  Oregon,  Direct  Legislation  Record,  vol.  3,  p.  18  (1901). 

OGBURN,  W.  F.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  Tested  in  Hard  Times,  Sur- 
vey, vol.  33,  693-4  (1915). 

OGBURN,  W.  F.,  Methods  of  Direct  Legislation  in  Oregon,  Publications 
of  the  American  Statistical  Association,  N.S.,  vol.  14,  pp.  136- 

55  (1914). 
OGBURN,  W.  F.,  Social  Legislation  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  Popular  Science 

Monthly,  vol.  86,  pp.  274-89  (1915). 
Oregon,  Direct  Legislation  Record,  vol.  7,  pp.  69-70  (1900). 
Oregon  Election,  Equity,  vol.  10,  pp.  67-70  (1908). 
Oregon  and  Genuine  Representative  Government,  Twentieth  Century 

Magazine,  vol.  2,  pp.  261-2  (1910). 
Oregon  to  the  Front,  Equity,  vol.  6,  pp.  25-6  (1906). 


Appendix  225 

Oregon  Vote,  Equity,  vol.  6,  pp.  25-6  (1906). 

OWEN,  R.  L.,  Code  of  People's  Rule,  Senate  Doc.  No.  603,  6ist  Cong., 

2d  Sess.  (1910). 
OWEN,  R.  L.,  Oregon  System  in  Practice,  Journal  of  Accountancy,  vol. 

12,  pp.  101-3  (1911). 

PAINE,  R.  T.,  Lincoln's  Ideal  Carried  Out  in  Oregon,  Arena,  vol.  40, 

pp.  283-6  (1908). 
PEASE,  L.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  —  Oregon's  "Big  Stick,"  Pacific 

Monthly,  vol.  17,  pp.  563-75  (1907). 
People's  Power  League,  Introductory  Letter,  1911. 

RAINE,  W.  M.,  Referendum  at  Work,  World  To-day,  vol.  n,  pp.  1268- 

72  (1906). 
Responsible  Government,  Outlook,  vol.  89,  pp.  363-4  (1908). 

SCHAFER,  J.,  Oregon  as  a  Political  Experiment  Station,  Review  of  Re- 
views, vol.  34,  pp.  172-6  (1906). 
SHIBLEY,  G.  H.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Practical  Operation, 

Arena,  vol.  40,  pp.  142-50  (1908). 
SHIBLEY,  G.  H.,  Judges  Attack  Oregon  Amendment  for  Majority  Rule, 

Arena,  vol.  30,  pp.  613-6  (1903). 
SHIBLEY,  G.  H.,  Majority  Rule  System,  Arena,  vol.  31,  pp.  284-5 

(1904). 
SHTPPEE,  L.  B.,  Oregon's  Initiative  and  Referendum  Again,  Atlantic 

Monthly,  vol.  109,  pp.  429-32  (1912). 
SHTPPEE,  L.  B.,  What  of  the  Legislature?  Overland  Monthly,  vol.  60, 

pp.  62-8  (1912). 

Singular  Political  Situation,  Outlook,  vol.  89,  pp.  313-4  (1908). 
SMITH,    C.,   and   EDWARD,    H.    P.,    Behind   the   Scenes    at   Salem 

(1911). 
SNOW,  C.  M.,  Letting  the  People  Speak,  Harper's  Weekly,  vol.  55, 

Apr.  22,  1911,  p.  9. 
STEFFENS,  L.,  U'Ren,  The  Law-Giver,  American  Magazine,  vol.  65, 

pp.  527-40  (1908). 
STICKLEY,  G.,  New  Methods  of  Getting  the  Government  Back  into  the 

Hands  of  the  People,  Craftsman,  vol.  20,  pp.  192-6  (1911). 
Strengthen  the  Oregon  Plan,  Independent,  vol.  69,  pp.  604-5 
Q 


226      Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

TEAL,  J.  N.,  Practical  Workings  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum 

in  Oregon,  Proceedings  of  the  Cincinnati  Conference  for  Good 

City  Government,  1909,  pp.  309-25. 
THACHER,  G.  A.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Proceedings 

of  the  American  Political  Science  Association,  vol.  4,  pp.  198-221 

(1907). 
THACHER,  G.  A.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Independent, 

vol.  64,  pp.  1191-5  (1908). 
THACHER,   G.  A.,  Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Popular  Election  of 

Senators  in  Oregon,  American  Political  Science  Review,  vol.  2, 

pp.  601-5  (i9°8)- 
THACHER,  G.  A.,  Oregon  Election,  Independent,  vol.  64,  pp.  1444-7 

(1908). 
THACHER,  G.  A.,  Interesting  Election  in  Oregon,  Independent,  vol.  69, 

pp.  1434-8  (1910). 
THACHER,  G.  A.,  Significance  of  the  Oregon  Experiment,  Outlook,  vol. 

83,  pp.  612-4  (1906). 

Triumphant  Democracy,  Arena,  vol.  40,  pp.  239-41  (1908). 
Truth  about  Oregon,  Equity,  vol.  16,  pp.  73-8  (1914). 

U'REN,  W.  S.,  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon,  Arena,  vol.  29, 

pp.  270-5  (1903). 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  Operation  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon, 

Arena,  vol.  32,  pp.  128-31  (1904). 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  Oregon's  Experience  with  the  Initiative  and  Referendum, 

La  Follette's  Magazine,  Apr.  23,  1910,  p.  6. 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  Record  of  Direct  Legislation  in  Oregon,  Equity,  vol.  12, 

pp.  56-7  (1910). 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  Results  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon, 

Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association,  vol.  4, 

PP-  193-7  (1907)- 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  State  and  County  Government  in  Oregon  and  Proposed 

Changes,  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 

Science,  vol.  47,  pp.  271-3  (1913). 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  Six  Years  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  Oregon, 

Chicago  City  Club  Bulletin,  vol.  2,  pp.  465-78  (1909). 
U'REN,  W.  S.,  Second  Direct  Legislation  Amendment  Passed,  Direct 

Legislation  Record,  vol.  6,  p.  i  (1899). 


Appendix  227 

U'REN,  W.  S.,  Symposium,  Direct  Legislation  Record,  vol.  8,  p.  60 
(1901). 

"W.  S.  U'Ren,"  Direct  Legislation  Record,  vol.  5,  pp.  19-20  (1898). 
WOOD,  C.  E.  S.,  Oregon  Situation  in  Full,  Public,  vol.  n,  pp.  320-3 

(1908). 
Working  of  the  Oregon  System,  Nation,  vol.  98,  pp.  451-2  (1914). 

YOUNG,  F.  G.,  Oregon  History  for  Oregon  System,  Quarterly  of  the  Oregon 
Historical  Society,  vol.  12,  pp.  264-8  (1911). 


H.    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND   STATUTORY  PROVISIONS 
i.  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 

i.  CONSTITUTION 

ART.  i,  SEC.  21.  Nor  shall  any  law  be  passed,  the  taking  effect 
of  which  shall  be  made  to  depend  upon  any  authority,  except  as  pro- 
vided in  this  constitution ;  provided,  that  laws  locating  the  capital  of 
the  state,  locating  county  seats,  and  submitting  town  and  corporate 
acts,  and  other  local  and  special  laws,  may  take  effect  or  not,  upon 
a  vote  of  the  electors  interested  (1859). 

ART.  4,  SEC.  i.  The  legislative  authority  of  the  state  shall  be 
vested  in  a  legislative  assembly,  consisting  of  a  senate  and  house  of 
representatives,  but  the  people  reserve  to  themselves  power  to  propose 
laws  and  amendments  to  the  constitution  and  to  enact  or  reject  the 
same  at  the  polls,  independent  of  the  legislative  assembly,  and  also 
reserve  power  at  their  own  option  to  approve  or  reject  at  the  polls  any 
act  of  the  legislative  assembly.  The  first  power  reserved  by  the  people 
is  the  initiative,  and  not  more  than  eight  per  cent  of  the  legal  voters 
shall  be  required  to  propose  any  measure  by  such  petition,  and  every 
such  petition  shall  include  the  full  text  of  the  measure  so  proposed. 
Initiative  petitions  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not  less 
than  four  months  before  the  election  at  which  they  are  to  be  voted 
upon.  The  second  power  is  the  referendum,  and  it  may  be  ordered 
(except  as  to  laws  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the 
public  peace,  health,  or  safety),  either  by  the  petition  signed  by  five 
per  cent  of  the  legal  voters,  or  by  the  legislative  assembly,  as  other 


228      Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

bills  are  enacted.  Referendum  petitions  shall  be  filed  with  the  secre- 
tary of  state  not  more  than  ninety  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of 
the  session  of  the  legislative  assembly  which  passed  the  bill  on  which 
the  referendum  is  demanded.  The  veto  power  of  the  governor  shall 
not  extend  to  measures  referred  to  the  people.  All  elections  on  meas- 
ures referred  to  the  people  of  the  state  shall  be  had  at  the  biennial 
regular  general  elections,  except  when  the  legislative  assembly  shall 
order  a  special  election.  Any  measure  referred  to  the  people  shall 
take  effect  and  become  the  law  when  it  is  approved  by  a  majority  of 
the  votes  cast  thereon,  and  not  otherwise.  The  style  of  all  bills  shall 
be:  "Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  state  of  Oregon."  This  sec- 
tion shall  not  be  construed  to  deprive  any  member  of  the  legislative 
assembly  of  the  right  to  introduce  any  measure.  The  whole  number 
of  votes  cast  for  justice  of  the  supreme  court  at  the  regular  election 
last  preceding  the  filing  of  any  petition  for  the  initiative  or  for  the 
referendum  shall  be  the  basis  on  which  the  number  of  legal  voters 
necessary  to  sign  such  petition  shall  be  counted.  Petitions  and  orders 
for  the  initiative  and  for  the  referendum  shall  be  filed  with  the  secre- 
tary of  state,  and  in  submitting  the  same  to  the  people  he,  and  all 
other  officers,  shall  be  guided  by  the  general  laws  and  the  act  submit- 
ting this  amendment,  until  legislation  shall  be  especially  provided 
therefor  (1902). 

ART.  4,  SEC.  i  a.  The  referendum  may  be  demanded  by  the  people 
against  one  or  more  items,  sections,  or  parts  of  any  act  of  the  legis- 
lative assembly  in  the  same  manner  in  which  such  power  may  be  exer- 
cised against  a  complete  act.  The  filing  of  a  referendum  petition 
against  one  or  more  items,  sections,  or  parts  of  an  act  shall  not  delay 
the  remainder  of  that  act  from  becoming  operative.  The  initiative 
and  referendum  powers  reserved  to  the  people  by  this  constitution 
are  hereby  further  reserved  to  the  legal  voters  of  every  municipality 
and  district,  as  to  all  local,  special  and  municipal  legislation,  of  every 
character,  in  or  for  their  respective  municipalities  and  districts.  The 
manner  of  exercising  said  powers  shall  be  prescribed  by  general  laws, 
except  that  cities  and  towns  may  provide  for  the  manner  of  exercising 
the  initiative  and  referendum  powers  as  to  their  municipal  legislation. 
Not  more  than  ten  per  cent  of  the  legal  voters  may  be  required  to  order 
the  referendum  nor  more  than  fifteen  per  cent  to  propose  any  measure, 
by  the  initiative,  in  any  city  or  town  (1906). 


Appendix  229 

ART.  4,  SEC.  28.  No  act  shall  take  effect  until  ninety  days  from 
the  end  of  the  session  at  which  the  same  shall  have  been  passed, 
except  in  case  of  emergency ;  which  emergency  shall  be  declared  in  the 
preamble  or  in  the  body  of  the  law  (1859). 

ART.  9,  SEC.  la.  The  legislative  assembly  shall  not  declare  an 
emergency  in  any  act  regulating  taxation  or  exemption. 

ART.  n,  SEC.  2.  The  legislative  assembly  shall  not  enact, 
amend,  or  repeal  any  charter  or  act  of  incorporation  for  any  mu- 
nicipality, city,  or  town.  The  legal  voters  of  every  city  and  town 
are  hereby  granted  power  to  enact  and  amend  their  municipal 
charter,  subject  to  the  constitution  and  criminal  laws  of  the  state  of 
Oregon  (1910). 

ART.  14,  SEC.  i.  At  the  first  regular  session  after  the  adoption 
of  this  constitution,  the  legislative  assembly  shall  provide  by  law  for 
the  submission  to  the  electors  of  this  state  at  the  next  general  election 
thereafter,  the  matter  of  the  selection  of  a  place  for  a  permanent  seat 
of  government ;  and  no  place  shall  ever  be  the  seat  of  government 
under  such  law,  which  shall  not  receive  a  majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast  on  the  matter  of  such  election  (1859). 

ART.  14,  SEC.  3.  The  seat  of  government,  when  established  as 
provided  in  section  i,  shall  not  be  removed  for  a  term  of  twenty  (20) 
years  from  the  time  of  such  establishment,  nor  in  any  other  manner 
than  as  provided  in  the  first  section  of  this  article.  All  the  public 
institutions  of  the  state,  not  located  elsewhere  prior  to  January  i, 
1907,  shall  be  located  in  the  county  where  the  seat  of  government  is, 
excepting  when  otherwise  ordered  by  an  act  of  the  legislative  assembly 
and  is  ratified  by  the  electors  of  the  state  at  the  next  general  election 
following  such  act,  by  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  on  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  such  act  shall  be  ratified  (1908). 

ART.  17,  SEC.  i.  Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  con- 
stitution may  be  proposed  in  either  branch  of  the  legislative  assembly, 
and  if  the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses,  such  proposed  amendment  or  amend- 
ments shall,  with  the  yeas  and  nays  thereon,  be  entered  in  their  jour- 
nals and  referred  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  the  people  for  their  ap- 
proval or  rejection,  at  the  next  regular  general  election,  except  when 
the  legislative  assembly  shall  order  a  special  election  for  that  purpose. 
If  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  on  any  such  amendment  shall  vote 


230     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

in  favor  thereof,  it  shall  thereby  become  a  part  of  this  constitution. 
The  votes  for  and  against  such  amendment  or  amendments,  severally, 
whether  proposed  by  the  legislative  assembly  or  by  initiative  petition, 
shall  be  canvassed  by  the  secretary  of  state  in  the  presence  of  the 
governor,  and  if  it  shall  appear  to  the  governor  that  the  majority  of 
the  votes  cast  at  said  election  on  said  amendment  or  amendments, 
severally,  are  cast  in  favor  thereof,  it  shall  be  his  duty  forthwith  after 
such  canvass,  by  his  proclamation,  to  declare  the  said  amendment  or 
amendments,  severally,  having  received  said  majority  of  votes,  to  have 
been  adopted  by  the  people  of  Oregon  as  part  of  the  constitution 
thereof,  and  the  same  shall  be  hi  effect  as  a  part  of  the  constitution 
from  the  date  of  such  proclamation.  When  two  or  more  amendments 
shall  be  submitted  in  the  manner  aforesaid  to  the  voters  of  this  state, 
at  the  same  election,  they  shall  be  so  submitted  that  each  amendment 
shall  be  voted  on  separately.  No  convention  shall  be  called  to 
amend  or  propose  amendments  to  this  constitution,  or  to  propose  a 
new  constitution,  unless  the  law  providing  for  such  convention  shall 
first  be  approved  by  the  people  on  a  referendum  vote  at  a  regular 
general  election.  This  article  shall  not  be  construed  to  impair  the 
right  of  the  people  to  amend  this  constitution  by  vote  upon  an  initia- 
tive petition  therefor  (1906). 

2.  STATUTES.    Lord's  Oregon  Laws  AS  AMENDED 

SEC.  3470.  The  following  shall  be  substantially  the  form  of  petition 
for  the  referendum  to  the  people  on  any  act  passed  by  the  legislative 
assembly  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  or  by  a  city  council :  — 

WARNING 

It  is  a  felony  for  any  one  to  sign  any  initiative  or  referendum  peti- 
tion with  any  name  other  than  his  own,  or  to  knowingly  sign  his  name 
more  than  once  for  the  same  measure,  or  to  sign  such  petition  when  he 
is  not  a  legal  voter. 

PETITION  FOR  REFERENDUM 

To  the  honorable secretary  of  state  for  the  state 

of  Oregon  (or  to  the  honorable  clerk,  auditor, 

or  recorder,  as  the  case  may  be,  of  the  city  of ) 


Appendix  23 1 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  and  legal  voters  of  the  state  of  Oregon 

(and  the  district  of ,  county  of ,  or 

city  of ,  as  the  case  may  be),  respectfully  order 

that  the  senate  (or  house)  bill  No entitled  (title  act  of,  and  if 

the  petition  is  against  less  than  the  whole  act  then  set  forth  here  the 
part  or  parts  on  which  the  referendum  is  sought),  passed  by  the 

legislative  assembly  of  the  state  of  Oregon  at  the 

regular  (special)  session  of  said  legislative  assembly,  shall  be  referred 

to  the  people  of  the  state  (district  of ,  county  of , 

or  city  of ,  as  the  case  may  be),  for  their  approval  or  re- 
jection, at  the  regular  (special)  election  to  be  held  on  the day 

of A.D.  19 . . . . ,  and  each  for  himself  says :   I  have  person- 
ally signed  this  petition ;  I  am  a  legal  voter  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  and 

(district  of ,  county  of ,  city  of , 

as  the  case  may  be) ;  my  residence  and  post-office  are  correctly  written 
after  my  name. 

Name Residence Post-office    

(If  in  a  city,  street  and  number.) 

(Here  follow  twenty  numbered  lines  for  signatures)  (1907). 

SEC.  3471.  The  following  shall  be  substantially  the  form  of  peti- 
tion for  any  law,  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  state  of  Oregon, 
city  ordinance  or  amendment  to  a  city  charter,  proposed  by  the 
initiative :  — 

WARNING 

It  is  a  felony  for  any  one  to  sign  any  initiative  or  referendum  peti- 
tion with  any  name  other  than  his  own,  or  to  knowingly  sign  his  name 
more  than  once  for  the  measure,  or  to  sign  such  petition  when  he  is 
not  a  legal  voter. 

INITIATIVE  PETITION 

To  the  honorable  ,  secretary  of  state  for  the  state  of 

Oregon  (or  to  the  honorable ,  clerk,  auditor  or  recorder, 

as  the  case  may  be,  for  the  city  of ) : 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  and  legal  voters  of  the  state  of  Oregon 

(and  of  the  district  of ,  county  of  ,  or  city  of 

,  as  the  case  may  be),  respectfully  demand  that  the  fol- 
lowing proposed  law  (or  amendment  to  the  constitution,  ordinance, 


232     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

or  amendment  to  the  city  charter,  as  the  case  may  be),  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  legal  voters  of  the  state  of  Oregon  (district  of , 

county  of ,  or  city  of ,  as  the  case  may  be), 

for  then*  approval  or  rejection  at  the  regular,  general  election,  or 

(regular  or  special  city  election),  to  be  held  on  the day  of , 

A.D.  19 . . . . ,  and  each  for  himself  says :  I  have  personally  signed  this 
petition ;  I  am  a  legal  voter  of  the  state  of  Oregon  (and  of  the  district 

of ,  county  of ,  city  of as  the  case  may  be) ; 

my  residence  and  post-office  are  correctly  written  after  my  name. 

Name Residence Post-office 

(If  in  a  city,  street  and  number). 

(Here  follow  twenty  numbered  lines  for  signatures)  (1907). 

SEC.  3472.  Before  or  at  the  time  of  beginning  to  circulate  any  peti- 
tion for  the  referendum  to  the  people  on  any  act  passed  by  the  legis- 
lative assembly  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  or  for  any  law,  amendment 
to  the  constitution  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  city  ordinance  or  amend- 
ment to  a  city  charter,  proposed  by  the  initiative,  the  person  or  per- 
sons or  organization  or  organizations  under  whose  authority  the 
measure  is  to  be  referred  or  initiated  shall  send  or  deliver  to  the 
secretary  of  state,  or  city  clerk,  recorder  or  auditor,  as  the  case  may 
be,  a  copy  of  such  petition  duly  signed  which  shall  be  filed  by  said 
officer  in  his  office,  who  shall  immediately  examine  the  same  and  spec- 
ify the  form  and  kind  and  size  of  paper  on  which  such  petition  shall 
be  printed  for  circulation  for  signatures. 

To  every  sheet  of  petitioners'  signatures  shall  be  attached  a  full  and 
correct  copy  of  the  measure  so  proposed  by  initiative  petition ;  but 
such  petition  may  be  filed  by  the  secretary  of  state  in  numbered  sec- 
tions for  convenience  in  handling.  Each  sheet  of  petitioners'  signa- 
tures upon  referendum  petitions  shall  be  attached  to  a  full  and  correct 
copy  of  the  measure  on  which  the  referendum  is  demanded  and  may 
be  filed  in  numbered  sections  in  like  manner  as  initiative  petitions. 
Not  more  than  20  signatures  on  one  sheet  shall  be  counted.  When 
any  such  initiative  or  referendum  petition  shall  be  offered  for  filing  the 
secretary  of  state  shall  detach  the  sheets  containing  the  signatures 
and  affidavits  and  cause  them  all  to  be  attached  to  one  or  more  printed 
copies  of  the  measure  so  proposed  by  initiative  or  referendum  peti- 
tions ;  provided,  all  petitions  for  the  initiative  and  for  the  referendum 
and  sheets  for  signatures  shall  be  printed  on  a  good  quality  of  bond  or 


Appendix  233 

ledger  paper  on  pages  8|  inches  in  width  by  13  inches  in  length,  with 
a  margin  of  i  f  inches  at  the  top  of  binding ;  if  the  aforesaid  sheets 
shall  be  too  bulky  for  convenient  binding  in  one  volume,  they  may 
be  bound  in  two  or  more  volumes,  those  in  each  volume  to  be  at- 
tached to  a  single  printed  copy  of  such  measure.  If  any  such  measure 
shall,  at  the  ensuing  election,  be  approved  by  the  people,  then  the 
copies  thereof  so  preserved,  with  the  sheets  and  signatures  and 
affidavits,  and  a  certified  copy  of  the  Governor's  proclamation  declar- 
ing the  same  to  have  been  approved  by  the  people,  shall  be  bound 
together  in  such  form  that  they  may  be  conveniently  identified  and 
preserved.  The  secretary  of  state  shall  cause  every  such  measure  so 
approved  by  the  people  to  be  printed  with  the  general  laws  enacted 
by  the  next  ensuing  session  of  the  legislative  assembly,  with  the  date 
of  the  governor's  proclamation  declaring  the  same  to  have  been  ap- 
proved by  the  people.  This  act  shall  not  apply  to  the  general  laws 
governing  the  method  of  determining  whether  stock  of  any  kind  shall 
be  permitted  to  run  at  large  in  any  county  or  portion  thereof,  nor  to 
the  provisions  of  the  local  option  liquor  laws  providing  methods  of 
determining  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  shall  be  prohibited  in  any 
county,  city,  precinct,  ward  or  district  (As  amended  by  Laws,  1913, 
ch.  359,  sec.  i). 

SEC.  3473.  Each  and  every  sheet  of  every  such  petition  containing 
signatures  shall  be  verified  on  the  face  thereof,  in  substantially  the 
following  form,  by  the  person  who  circulated  said  sheet  of  said  pe- 
tition, by  his  or  her  affidavit  thereon  and  as  a  part  thereof. 

STATE  OF  OREGON! 

f  SS. 

County  of j 

I,  ,  being  first  duly  sworn,  say :  That  I  am 

personally  acquainted  with  all  the  persons  who  signed  this  sheet  of  the 
foregoing  petition,  and  each  of  them  signed  his  or  her  name  thereto 
in  my  presence ;  I  believe  that  each  has  stated  his  or  her  name,  post- 
office  address  and  residence  correctly,  and  that  each  signer  is  a  legal 

voter  of  the  State  of  Oregon  and  county  of (Or 

of  the  city  of ,  as  the  case  may  be.) 

(Signature  and  post  office  address  of  affiant.) 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this day  of , 

A.D.  IQ 


234     Initiative,  Referendum,  and   Recall  in  Oregon 

(Signature  and  title  of  officer  before  whom  oath  is  made,  and  his 
post  office  address.) 

The  forms  herein  given  are  not  mandatory,  and  if  substantially 
followed  in  any  petition  it  shall  be  sufficient,  disregarding  clerical  and 
merely  technical  errors. 

(As  amended  by  Laws,  1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  2). 
SEC.  3474.  If  the  secretary  of  state  shall  refuse  to  accept  and  file 
any  petition  for  the  initiative  or  for  the  referendum  any  citizen  may 
apply,  within  ten  days  after  such  refusal,  to  the  circuit  court  for  a  writ 
of  mandamus  to  compel  him  to  do  so.  If  it  shall  be  decided  by  the 
court  that  such  petition  is  legally  sufficient,  the  secretary  of  state  shall 
then  file  it,  with  a  certified  copy  of  the  judgment  attached  thereto, 
as  of  the  date  on  which  it  was  originally  offered  for  filing  in  his  office. 
On  a  showing  that  any  petition  filed  is  not  legally  sufficient,  the  court 
may  enjoin  the  secretary  of  state  and  all  other  officers  from  certifying 
or  printing  on  the  official  ballot  for  the  ensuing  election  the  ballot 
title  and  numbers  of  such  measure.  All  such  suits  shall  be  advanced 
on  the  court  docket  and  heard  and  decided  by  the  court  as  quickly  as 
possible.  Either  party  may  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  within  ten 
days  after  the  decision  is  rendered.  The  circuit  court  of  Marion 
county  shall  have  jurisdiction  hi  all  cases  of  measures  to  be  submitted 
to  the  electors  of  the  state  at  large;  in  cases  of  local  and  special 
measures,  the  circuit  court  of  the  county,  or  of  one  of  the  counties 
in  which  such  measures  are  to  be  voted  upon,  shall  have  jurisdiction ; 
in  cases  of  municipal  legislation  the  circuit  court  of  the  county  in 
which  the  city  concerned  is  situated  shall  have  jurisdiction  (1907). 

SEC.  3475.  When  any  measure  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of 
state  to  be  referred  to  the  people  of  the  state,  or  of  any  county  or  dis- 
trict composed  of  one  or  more  counties,  either  by  the  legislative  as- 
sembly or  the  referendum  petition,  and  when  any  measure  shall  be 
proposed  by  initiative  petition,  the  secretary  of  state  shall  forthwith 
transmit  to  the  attorney  general  of  the  state  a  copy  thereof,  and 
within  ten  days  thereafter  the  attorney  general  shall  provide  and  re- 
turn to  the  secretary  of  state  a  ballot  title  for  said  measure.  The 
ballot  title  shall  contain :  (i)  The  name  or  names  of  the  person  or 
persons,  organization,  or  organizations  under  whose  authority  the 
measure  was  initiated  or  referred.  (2)  A  distinctive  short  title  in 
not  exceeding  10  words  by  which  the  measure  is  commonly  referred  to 


Appendix  235 

or  spoken  of  by  the  public  or  press,  and  (3)  a  general  title  which  may 
be  distinct  from  the  legislative  title  of  the  measure,  expressing  in  not 
more  than  100  words  the  purpose  of  the  measure.  The  ballot  title 
shall  be  printed  with  the  numbers  of  the  measure,  on  the  official  ballot. 
In  making  such  ballot  title  the  attorney  general  shall,  to  the  best  of 
his  ability,  give  a  true  and  impartial  statement  of  the  purpose  of  the 
measure,  and  in  such  language  that  the  ballot  title  shall  not  be  inten- 
tionally an  argument,  or  likely  to  create  prejudice,  either  for  or  against 
the  measure.  Any  person  who  is  dissatisfied  with  the  ballot  title 
provided  by  the  attorney  general  for  any  measure  may  appeal  from 
his  decision  to  the  circuit  court,  as  provided  by  the  section  3474,  by 
petition,  praying  for  different  title  and  setting  forth  the  reasons  why 
the  title  prepared  by  the  attorney  general  is  insufficient  or  unfair. 
No  appeal  shall  be  allowed  from  the  decision  of  the  attorney  general 
on  a  ballot  title,  unless  the  same  is  taken  within  10  days  after  said 
decision  is  filed.  A  copy  of  every  such  decision  shall  be  served  by  the 
secretary  of  state  or  the  clerk  of  the  court,  upon  the  person  offering 
or  filing  such  initiative  or  referendum  petition,  or  appeal.  Service 
of  such  decision  may  be  by  mail  or  telegraph  and  shall  be  made  forth- 
with. Said  circuit  court  shall  thereupon  examine  said  measure,  hear 
arguments,  and  in  its  decision  thereon  certify  to  the  secretary  of  state 
a  ballot  title  for  the  measure  in  accord  with  the  intent  of  this  section. 
The  decision  of  the  circuit  court  shall  be  final.  The  secretary  of  state 
shall  print  on  the  official  ballot  the  title  thus  certified  to  him  (As 
amended  by  Laws,  1913,  ch.  36,  sec.  i). 

SEC.  3476.  The  secretary  of  state,  at  the  time  he  furnishes  to  the 
county  clerks  of  the  several  counties  certified  copies  of  the  names 
of  the  candidates  for  state  and  district  offices,  shall  furnish  to  each  of 
said  county  clerks  his  certified  copy  of  the  ballot  titles  and  numbers 
of  the  several  measures  to  be  voted  upon  at  the  ensuing  general 
election,  and  he  shall  use  for  each  measure  the  ballot  title  designated 
in  the  manner  herein  provided.  Such  ballot  title  shall  not  resemble, 
so  far  as  to  probably  create  confusion,  any  such  title  previously  filed 
for  any  measure  to  be  submitted  at  that  election  ;  he  shall  number  such 
measures  and  such  ballot  titles  shall  be  printed  on  the  official  ballot 
in  the  order  in  which  the  acts  referred  by  the  legislative  assembly 
and  petitions  by  the  people  shall  be  filed  in  his  office.  The  affirmative 
of  the  first  measure  shall  be  numbered  300  and  the  negative  301  in 


236     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

numerals,  and  the  succeeding  measures  shall  be  numbered  consecu- 
tively 302,  303,  304,  305,  and  so  on,  at  each  election.  It  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  several  county  clerks  to  print  said  ballot  titles  and  num- 
bers upon  the  official  ballot  in  the  order  presented  to  them  by  the 
secretary  of  state  and  the  relative  position  required  by  law.  Meas- 
ures referred  by  the  legislative  assembly  shall  be  designated  by  the 
heading  "Referred  to  the  People  by  the  Legislative  Assembly"; 
measures  referred  by  petition  shall  be  designated  "Referendum  Or- 
dered by  Petition  of  the  People";  measures  proposed  by  initiative 
petition  shall  be  designated  and  distinguished  on  the  ballot  by  the 
heading  "Proposed  by  Initiative  Petition."  (As  amended  by  Laws, 
1913,  ch.  359,  sec.  3). 

SEC.  3477.  The  manner  of  voting  upon  measures  submitted  to  the 
people  shall  be  the  same  as  is  now  or  may  be  required  and  provided 
by  law ;  no  measure  shall  be  adopted  unless  it  shall  receive  an  affirma- 
tive majority  of  the  total  number  of  respective  votes  cast  on  such 
measure  and  entitled  to  be  counted  under  the  provisions  of  this  act ; 
that  is  to  say,  supposing  seventy  thousand  ballots  to  be  properly  marked 
on  any  measure,  it  shall  not  be  adopted  unless  it  shall  receive  more 
than  thirty-five  thousand  affirmative  votes.  If  two  or  more  conflict- 
ing laws  shall  be  approved  by  the  people  at  the  same  election,  the  law 
receiving  the  greatest  number  of  affirmative  votes  shall  be  para- 
mount in  all  particulars  as  to  which  there  is  a  conflict,  even  though 
such  law  may  not  have  received  the  greatest  majority  of  affirmative 
votes.  If  two  or  more  conflicting  amendments  to  the  constitution 
shall  be  approved  by  the  people  at  the  same  election,  the  amendment 
which  receives  the  greatest  number  of  affirmative  votes  shall  be  para- 
mount in  all  particulars  as  to  which  there  is  a  conflict,  even  though 
such  amendment  may  not  have  received  the  greatest  majority  of 
affirmative  votes  (1907). 

SEC.  3478.  Not  later  than  the  goth  day  before  any  regular  general 
election,  nor  later  than  30  days  before  any  special  election,  at  which 
any  proposed  law,  part  of  an  act  or  amendment  to  the  constitution  is 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  the  secretary  of  state  shall  cause  to  be 
printed  in  pamphlet  form  a  true  copy  of  the  title  and  text  of  each 
measure  to  be  submitted,  with  the  number  and  form  in  which  the 
ballot  title  thereof  will  be  printed  on  the  official  ballot.  The  person, 
committee  or  duly  organized  officers  of  any  organization  filing  any 


Appendix  237 

petition  for  the  initiative,  but  no  other  person  or  organization,  shall 
have  the  right  to  file  with  the  secretary  of  state  for  printing  and  dis- 
tribution any  argument  advocating  such  measure;  said  argument 
shall  be  filed  not  later  than  the  ii$th  day  before  the  regular  election  at 
which  the  measure  is  to  be  voted  upon.  Any  person,  committee  or 
organization  may  file  with  the  secretary  of  state,  for  printing  and 
distribution,  any  arguments  they  may  desire,  opposing  any  measure, 
not  later  than  the  losth  day  immediately  preceding  such  election. 
Arguments  advocating  or  opposing  any  measure  referred  to  the 
people  by  the  legislative  assembly,  or  by  referendum  petition,  at  a 
regular  general  election,  shall  be  governed  by  the  same  rules  as  to  time, 
but  may  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  by  any  person,  committee 
or  organization ;  in  the  case  of  measures  submitted  at  a  special  elec- 
tion, all  arguments  in  support  of  such  measure  at  least  60  days  before 
such  election.  But  in  every  case  the  person  or  persons  offering  such 
arguments  for  printing  and  distribution  shall  pay  to  the  secretary 
of  state  sufficient  money  to  pay  all  the  expenses  for  paper  and  print- 
ing to  supply  one  copy  with  every  copy  of  the  measure  to  be  printed 
by  the  state ;  and  he  shall  forthwith  notify  the  persons  offering  the 
same  of  the  amount  of  money  necessary.  The  secretary  of  state 
shall  cause  one  copy  of  each  of  said  arguments  to  be  bound  in  the  pam- 
phlet copy  of  the  measures  to  be  submitted  as  herein  provided,  and 
all  such  measures  and  arguments  to  be  submitted  at  one  election  shall 
be  bound  together  in  a  single  pamphlet.  All  the  printing  shall  be 
done  by  the  state,  and  the  pages  of  said  pamphlet  shall  be  numbered 
consecutively  from  one  to  the  end.  The  pages  of  said  pamphlet  shall 
be  six  by  nine  inches  in  size  and  the  printed  matter  therein  shall  be 
set  in  six-point  Roman-faced  solid  type  on  not  to  exceed  seven-point 
body,  in  two  columns  of  13  ems  in  width  each  to  the  page  with  six- 
point  dividing  rule  and  with  appropriate  heads  and  printed  on  a  good 
quality  of  book  paper  25  by  38  inches  weighing  not  more  than  50 
pounds  to  the  ream.  The  title  page  of  every  measure  bound  in  said 
pamphlet  shall  show  its  ballot  title  and  ballot  number.  The  title  page 
of  each  argument  shall  show  the  measure  or  measures  it  favors  or  op- 
poses and  by  what  persons  or  organization  it  is  issued.  When  such 
arguments  are  printed  he  shall  pay  the  state  printer  therefor  from 
the  money  deposited  with  him  and  refund  the  surplus,  if  any,  to  the 
parties  who  paid  it  to  him.  The  cost  of  printing,  binding  and  dis- 


238     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

tributing  the  measures  proposed  and  of  binding  and  distributing  the 
arguments,  shall  be  paid  by  the  state  as  a  part  of  the  state  printing, 
it  being  intended  that  only  the  cost  of  paper  and  printing  the  argu- 
ments shall  be  paid  by  the  parties  presenting  the  same,  and  they  shall 
not  be  charged  any  higher  rate  for  such  work  than  is  paid  by  the 
state  for  similar  work  and  paper.  Not  later  than  the  55th  day  before 
the  regular  general  election  at  which  such  measures  are  to  be  voted 
upon  the  secretary  of  state  shall  transmit  by  mail,  with  postage  fully 
prepaid,  to  every  voter  in  the  state  whose  address  he  may  have, 
one  copy  of  such  pamphlet ;  provided,  that  if  the  secretary  shall, 
at  or  about  the  same  time  be  mailing  any  other  pamphlet  to  every 
voter,  he  may,  if  practicable,  bind  the  matter  herein  provided  for  in 
the  first  part  of  said  pamphlet,  numbering  the  pages  of  the  entire 
pamphlet  consecutively  from  one  to  the  end,  or  he  may  enclose 
the  pamphlets  under  one  cover.  In  the  case  of  a  special  election 
he  shall  mail  said  pamphlet  to  every  voter  not  less  than  20  days 
before  said  special  election.  (As  amended  by  Laws,  1913  ;  ch.  359, 
sec.  4). 

SEC.  3483.  Every  person  who  is  a  qualified  elector  of  the  state  of 
Oregon  may  sign  a  petition  for  the  referendum  or  for  the  initiative  for 
any  measure  which  he  is  legally  entitled  to  vote  upon.  Any  person 
signing  any  name  other  than  his  own  to  any  petition,  or  knowingly 
signing  his  name  more  than  once  for  the  same  measure  at  one  election, 
or  who  is  not  at  the  time  of  signing  the  same  a  legal  voter  of  this  state, 
or  any  officer  or  person  willfully  violating  any  provision  of  this  statute, 
shall,  upon  conviction  thereof,  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
$500,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  not  exceeding  two  years, 
or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court 
before  which  such  conviction  shall  be  had  (1907). 

SEC.  3497.  .  .  .  Any  person  not  a  candidate  for  any  office  or  nomi- 
nation who  expends  money  or  value  to  an  amount  greater  than  $50 
in  any  campaign  for  nomination  or  election,  to  aid  in  the  election  or 
defeat  of  any  candidate  or  candidates,  or  party  ticket,  or  measure 
before  the  people,  shall  within  ten  days  after  the  election  in  which 
said  money  or  value  was  expended,  file  with  the  secretary  of  state 
in  the  case  of  a  measure  voted  upon  by  the  people  ...  an  itemized 
statement  of  such  receipts  and  expenditures  and  vouchers  for  every 
sum  paid  in  excess  of  $5  ...  (1908). 


Appendix  239 

SEC.  3515.  Any  person  shall  be  guilty  of  a  corrupt  practice  within 
the  meaning  of  this  act  if  he  expends  any  money  for  election  purposes 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  any  statute  of  this  state,  or  if  he  is  guilty 
of  treating,  undue  influence,  personation,  the  giving  or  promising  to 
give,  or  offer  of  any  money  or  valuable  thing  to  any  elector  with  intent 
to  induce  such  elector  to  vote  or  to  refrain  from  voting  for  any  candi- 
date for  public  office,  or  the  ticket  of  any  political  party  or  organiza- 
tion, or  any  measure  submitted  to  the  people,  at  any  election,  or  to 
register  or  refrain  from  registering  as  a  voter  at  any  state,  district, 
county,  city,  town,  village,  or  school  district  election  for  public  offices  or 
on  public  measures.  Such  corrupt  practice  shall  be  deemed  to  be  prev- 
alent when  instances  thereof  occur  in  different  election  districts  simi- 
lar in  character  and  sufficient  in  number  to  convince  the  court  before 
which  any  case  involving  the  same  may  be  tried  that  they  were  general 
and  common,  or  were  pursuant  to  a  general  scheme  or  plan  (1908). 

SEC.  3517.  No  publisher  of  a  newspaper  or  other  periodical  shall 
insert,  either  in  its  advertising  or  reading  columns,  any  paid  matter 
which  is  designed  or  tends  to  aid,  injure,  or  defeat  any  candidate  or 
political  party  or  organization,  or  measure  before  the  people,  unless 
it  is  stated  therein  that  it  is  a  paid  advertisement,  the  name  of 
the  chairman  or  secretary,  or  the  names  of  the  other  officers  of  the 
political  or  other  organization  inserting  the  same,  or  the  name  of 
some  voter  who  is  responsible  therefor,  with  his  residence  and  the 
street  and  number  thereof,  if  any,  appear  in  such  advertisement  hi 
the  nature  of  a  signature.  .  .  .  Any  person  who  shall  violate  any 
of  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  punished  as  for  a  corrupt 
practice  (1908). 

SEC.  3518.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  at  any  place  on  the 
day  of  any  election  to  ask,  solicit,  or  in  any  manner  try  to  induce  or 
persuade  any  voter  on  such  election  day  to  vote  for  or  refrain  from 
voting  for  any  candidate,  or  the  candidates  or  ticket  of  any  political 
party  or  organization,  or  any  measure  submitted  to  the  people,  and 
upon  conviction  thereof  he  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
$5  nor  more  than  $100  for  the  first  offense,  and  for  the  second  and 
each  subsequent  offense  occurring  on  the  same  or  different  election 
days,  he  shall  be  punished  by  fine  as  aforesaid,  or  by  imprisonment 
in  the  county  jail  for  not  less  than  five  nor  more  than  thirty  days, 
or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  (1908). 


240     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

SEC.  3519.  It  shall  be  unlawful  to  write,  print,  or  circulate  through 
the  mails  or  otherwise  any  letter,  circular,  bill,  placard,  or  poster 
relating  to  any  election  or  to  any  candidate  at  any  election,  unless  the 
same  shall  bear  on  its  face  the  name  and  address  of  the  author,  and  of 
the  printer  and  publisher  thereof ;  and  any  person  writing,  printing, 
publishing,  circulating,  posting,  or  causing  to  be  written,  printed, 
circulated,  posted,  or  published  any  such  letter,  bill,  placard,  circular, 
or  poster  as  aforesaid,  which  fails  to  bear  on  its  face  the  name  and  ad- 
dress of  the  author  and  of  the  printer  or  publisher  shall  be  guilty  of  an 
illegal  practice,  and  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  punished  by  fine 
of  not  less  than  $10  nor  more  than  $1000  .  .  .  (1908). 

2.   RECALL 
CONSTITUTION 

ART.  2,  SEC.  18.  Every  public  officer  in  Oregon  is  subject,  as  herein 
provided,  to  recall  by  the  legal  voters  of  the  state  or  of  the  electoral 
district  from  which  he  is  elected.  There  may  be  required  twenty-five 
per  cent,  but  not  more,  of  the  number  of  electors  who  voted  in  his 
district  at  the  preceding  election  for  justice  of  the  supreme  court  to  file 
their  petition  demanding  his  recall  by  the  people.  They  shall  set  forth 
in  said  petition  the  reasons  for  said  demand.  If  he  shall  offer  his  resig- 
nation, it  shall  be  accepted  and  take  effect  on  the  day  it  is  offered,  and 
the  vacancy  shall  be  filled  as  may  be  provided  by  law.  If  he  shall  not 
resign  within  five  days  after  the  petition  is  filed,  a  special  election  shall 
be  ordered  to  be  held  within  twenty  days  in  his  said  electoral  district 
to  determine  whether  the  people  will  recall  said  officer.  On  the  sam- 
ple ballot  at  said  election  shall  be  printed  in  not  more  than  two  hun- 
dred words,  the  reasons  for  demanding  the  recall  of  said  officer  as  set 
forth  hi  the  recall  petition,  and  in  not  more  than  two  hundred  words, 
the  officer's  justification  of  his  course  in  office.  He  shall  continue  to 
perform  the  duties  of  his  office  until  the  result  of  said  special  election 
shall  be  officially  declared.  Other  candidates  for  the  office  may  be 
nominated  to  be  voted  for  at  said  special  election.  The  candidate  who 
shall  receive  the  highest  number  of  votes  shall  be  deemed  elected  for 
the  remainder  of  the  term,  whether  it  be  the  person  against  whom  the 
recall  petition  was  filed,  or  another.  The  recall  petition  shall  be  filed 
with  the  officer  with  whom  a  petition  for  nomination  to  such  office 
should  be  filed,  and  the  same  officer  shall  order  the  special  election 


Appendix 


241 


when  it  is  required.  No  such  petition  shall  be  circulated  against  any 
officer  until  he  has  actually  held  his  office  six  months,  save  and  except 
that  it  may  be  filed  against  a  senator  or  representative  in  the  legisla- 
tive assembly  at  any  time  after  five  days  from  the  beginning  of  the 
first  session  after  his  election.  After  one  such  petition  and  special 
election,  no  further  recall  petition  shall  be  filed  against  the  same  officer 
during  the  term  for  which  he  was  elected  unless  such  further  petition- 
ers shall  first  pay  into  the  public  treasury  which  has  paid  such  special 
election  expenses,  the  whole  amount  of  its  expenses  for  the  preceding 
special  election.  Such  additional  legislation  as  may  aid  the  operation 
of  this  section  shall  be  provided  by  the  legislative  assembly,  includ- 
ing provision  for  payment  by  the  public  treasury  of  the  reasonable 
special  election  campaign  expenses  of  such  officer.  But  the  words  "the 
legislative  assembly  shall  provide"  or  any  similar  or  equivalent  words 
in  this  constitution  or  any  amendment  thereto,  shall  not  be  construed 
to  grant  to  the  legislative  assembly  any  exclusive  power  of  law-mak- 
ing nor  in  any  way  to  limit  the  initiative  and  referendum  powers  re- 
served by  the  people  (1908). 

HI.    THE  VOTE  ON  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM 

MEASURES 


(1)  Referred  by  the  Legislative  Assembly. 

(2)  Initiated  by  Petition. 


(3)  Referred  by  Petition. 
(*)  Adopted  at  the  Election. 


GENERAL  ELECTION,    1004 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  99,315. 

Average  percentage  vote  for  state  officers,  90. 


PERCENTAGE 

OF  TOTAL 

MAJORITY- 

NUMBER 

YES 

No 

VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 

BY  EACH 

VOTE  CAST 

MEASURE 



Constitutional  A  mendment 

Authorizing  the  legislative  as- 

sembly to  regulate  the  of- 

fice of  state  printer  (2) 

45,334  * 

14,031 

60 

46 

Bills 



Providing  for  direct  primary 

nominations  (2)    .... 

56,205  * 

16,354 

73 

57 



Local   option   liquor   regula- 

tion (2)        

43,3i6  * 

40,198 

84 

44 

242     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


GENERAL  ELECTION,   1906 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  99,445. 

Average  percentage  vote  for  state  officers,  91. 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

Constitutional  Amendments 



Granting  the  suffrage  to  wo- 

men (2)        

36,002 

47,075 

84 



Changing  the  method  apply- 

ing      to       constitutional 

amendments  submitted  by 

the    legislative    assembly, 

and  requiring  calls  for  con- 

stitutional conventions  to 

be   submitted   to   the   ap- 

proval of  the  voters  (2) 

47,661  * 

i8,75i 

67 

48 



Providing  for  home-rule  char- 

ters for  municipalities  (2) 

52,567  * 

19,852 

73 

53 



Authorizing  the  regulation  of 

the  office  of  state  printer  by 

law  (2)    

6^,  74.0  * 

O  <C7I 

74. 

64 



Extending  the  initiative  and 

v<j>  i  ty 

v,o  / 

/*r 

uq. 

referendum   to   the  locali- 

ties (2)    

47,678  * 

16,735 

6s 

48 

Bills 

WJ 

*TW 



General     appropriation     for 

state  institutions  (3)      .     . 

43,918  * 

26,758 

7i 

44 



Amendment  of  local  option 

liquor  law  in  favor  of  anti- 

prohibitionists  (2)      ... 

35,297 

45,144 

81 



Purchase  of  Barlow  toll  road 

by  state  (2)    

•JI.C2S 

d.d.127 

77 



Prohibiting  the  issue  of  free 

<j*ttj"j 

*T*t»O*  / 

/  / 

passes   and   discrimination 

by  railroads  and  other  pub- 

lic service  corporations  (2) 

57,281  * 

16,779 

74 

58 



Gross-earnings  tax  on  sleeping 

and  refrigerator  car  com- 

panies and  oil  companies  (2) 

69,635  * 

6,441 

77 

70 



Gross-earnings  tax  on  express, 

telephone,    and    telegraph 

companies  (2)       .... 

70,872  * 

6,360 

78 

7i 

Appendix 


GENERAL  ELECTION,   1908 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  116,614. 

Average  percentage  vote  for  state  officers,  89. 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

Constitutional  A  mendments 

300. 

Increasing    compensation    of 

members  of  legislative  as- 

sembly (i)        

19,691 

68,892 

76 

302. 

Permitting    the    location    of 

state  institutions  away  from 

the  capital  by  act  approved 

by  the  people  (i)       ... 

4i,975  * 

40,868 

71 

36 

304- 

Increasing  the  number  of  jus- 

tices of  the  supreme  court, 

and  authorizing  reorganiza- 

tion of  the  judicial  system 

by  law  (i)   

30,243 

eo.SOI 

69 

306. 

Changing  the  date  of  general 

*?w,oy  * 

wy 

elections  (i)      

65,728  * 

18,591 

72 

56 

316. 

Granting     the     suffrage     to 

women  (2)        

36,858 

58,670 

82 

320. 

Giving  cities  exclusive  power 

to  regulate  theaters,  race 

tracks,  poolrooms,  etc.,  and 

the  sale  of  liquor,  subject  to 

the  local  option  law  (2) 

39,442 

52,346 

79 

322. 

Providing  a  modified  single 

tax  (2)     

32,066 

60,871 

80 

324- 

Permitting  the  recall  of  offi- 

cers (2)    

58,381  * 

3I,OO2 

76 

50 

328. 

Authorizing  laws  for  propor- 

tional   representation    and 

preferential  voting  (2)    .     . 

48,868  * 

34,128 

7i 

42 

334- 

Requiring  indictment  to  be 

by  grand  jury  (2)      ... 

52,214  * 

28,487 

69 

45 

Bills 

308. 

Providing  for  the  custody  of 

prisoners  in  county  jails  by 

the  sheriff,  authorizing  the 

county  court  to  direct  the 

work  of  prisoners,  and  regu- 

lating the  salaries  of  guards 

and  the  prices  of  prisoners' 

meals  in  one  county  (3) 

60,443  * 

30,033 

78 

52 

244     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  igo8  —  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

310. 

Requiring  railroads  and  other 

common  carriers  to  give  cer- 

tain   public    officials    free 

passes  (3)     

28,856 

59,406 

76 

312. 

Appropriation  for  armories  (3) 

33,507 

54,848 

/  v 

76 

3i4- 

Appropriation  for  the  univer- 

sitv  (3) 

AA  IIS  * 

AQ  e-ztf 

7* 

38 

318. 

Regulating    fishing    in    the 

*rrt  *  *w 

*T**t  J  JO 

/  *> 

O^ 

Columbia  river  in  favor  of 

the  fish-wheel  operators  (2) 

46,582   * 

40,720 

75 

40 

326. 

Instructing  members  of  the 

legislature  to  vote  for  the 

people's  choice  of  United 

States  senator  (2)      ... 

69,668  * 

2I,l62 

78 

60 

330. 

Punishing    corrupt    practices 

at  elections  (2)      .... 

54,042   * 

31,301 

73 

46 

332. 

Regulating  fishing  in  the  Co- 

lumbia river  in  favor  of  the 

gill-net  operators  (2)      .     . 

56,130  * 

30,280 

74 

48 

336. 

Creating  Hood  River  county 

(2)      

43,948  * 

26,778 

61 

38 

GENERAL  ELECTION,   1910 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  120,248. 

Average  percentage  vote  for  state  officers,  87. 


PERCENTAGE 

or  TOTAL 

MAJORITY- 

NUMBER 

YES 

No 

VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 

BY  EACH 

VOTE  CAST 

MEASURE 

Constitutional  A  mendments 

300. 

Granting  the  suffrage  to  wo- 

men (2)        

35,270 

59,065 

78 

306. 

Providing  single  districts  for 

members  of  the  legislative 

assembly  (i)     

24,000 

54,252 

65 

308. 

Repealing  the  constitutional 

requirement  of  equal  and 

uniform  taxation  (i)      .     . 

37,6i9 

40,172 

65 

Appendix 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1910—  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

310. 

Authorizing  the  organization 

of  railroad  districts  and  the 

operation   of   railroads   by 

the  state  and  localities  (i) 

32,844 

46,070 

66 

61 

312. 

Authorizing  the  levy  of  state 

and  local  taxes  on  separate 

classes  of  property  and  the 

apportionment  of  state  taxes 

among  the  counties  (i) 

31,629 

41,692 

61 

326. 

Abolishing  the  poll  tax,  requir- 

ing all  laws  regulating  taxa- 

tion or  exemption  through- 

out the  state  to  be  referred 

to   the  people,  exempting 

from  constitutional  restric- 

tions all  measures  approved 

by  the  people  declaring  what 

shall  be  subject  to  taxation 

or  exemption  and  how  it 

shall  be  taxed  or  exempted, 

and       authorizing       each 

county  to  regulate  taxation 

and  exemption  within  its 

limits,  subject  to  any  general 

laws  hereafter  enacted  (2) 

44,i7i  * 

42,127 

72 

37 

328. 

Giving  cities  exclusive  power 

to  regulate  the  liquor  traffic 

within  their  limits,  subject 

to  the  local  option  law  (2) 

53,321  * 

50,779 

87 

44 

342. 

State-wide  prohibition  of  the 

liquor  traffic  (2)    .... 

43,540 

61,221 

87 

354- 

Increasing  the  maximum  limit 

of  county  indebtedness  for 

roads  and  requiring  a  ma- 

jority   vote    for    such    in- 

debtedness (2)      .... 

5i,275  * 

32,906 

70 

43 

360. 

Reorganizing  extensively  the 

legislative  department  (2) 

37,031 

44,336 

68 

362. 

Reorganizing  extensively  the 

judicial  department,  chang- 

ing the  system  of  appeals, 

and  providing  for  a  three- 

fourths'    verdict    in    civil 

cases  (2) 

A4.«8  * 

4O.3OO 

7O 

37 

Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1910  —  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

302. 

Bills 
Establishing  an  insane  asy- 
lum (i)    

co.iaA  * 

76 

304- 

314- 

316. 
318. 

320. 
322. 

Calling  a  constitutional  con- 
vention (i)       
Requiring    Baker  county  to 
add  to  the  salary  of  the  cir- 
cuit judge  (3)        .... 
Creating  Nesmith  county  (2) 
Establishing  a  normal  school 
at  Monmouth  (2)      .     .     . 
Creating  Otis  county  (2) 
Annexing  part  of  Clackamas 
county     to      Multnomah 
county  (2)   

23,143 
I3,l6l 

22,866 

50,191  * 
17,426 

16,250 

59,974 

71,503 
60,951 

40,044 
62,016 

69 

70 
69 

75 
66 

42 

324- 
330. 

Creating  Williams  county  (2) 
Regulating  employers'  liabil- 
ity (2)     

14,508 
56,258  * 

64,090 

•!  J   QA* 

65 

72 

37 

332. 
334- 
336. 

338. 

Creating  Orchard  county  (2) 
Creating  Clark  county  (2) 
Establishing  a  normal  school 
at  Weston  (2)        .... 
Annexing  part  of  Washington 
county      to      Multnomah 
county  (2)       

15,664 
15,613 

40,898 
14,047 

62,712 
6l,704 

46,2OI 

68  221 

65 
64 

72 

68 

340. 

344- 
346. 

348. 
3So. 

Establishing  a  normal  school 
at  Ashland  (2)      .... 
State-wide  prohibition  (2) 
Creating  commission  on  em- 
ployers' liability  (2)       .     . 
Regulating    fishing    in    the 
Rogue  river  (2)    .    .     .     . 
Creating  Des  Chutes  county 
(2)      

38,473 
42,651 

32,224 
49,712  * 
I7,592 

48,655 
63,564 

51,719 

33,397 
60,486 

72 
88 

70 

69 
64 

41 

352. 

Providing  methods  for  creat- 
ing  new  towns,   counties, 
and  municipal  districts,  and 
changing    county    bound- 
aries (2)       

77.120 

A2.  -127 

66 

356. 
358. 

Providing     for     presidential 
primary  elections  (2)     .    . 
Creating  a  board  of  people's 
inspectors   of   government 
and  providing  for  an  official 
state  gazette  (2)        ... 

43,353  * 
29,955 

41,624 
52,538 

7i 
69 

36 

Appendix 


247 


GENERAL  ELECTION,   1912 
Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  144,113. 
Average  percentage  vote  for  state  officers, 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORTTY- 
PERCENTAGE 
or  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

Constitutional  A  mendments 

300. 

Granting     the     suffrage     to 

women  (2)   

61,265  * 

57,104 

82 

43 

302. 

Creating  the  office  of  lieuten- 

ant-governor (i)        .     .     . 

50*562 

61,644 

78 

304- 

Authorizing  the  levy  of  state 

and  local  taxes  on  separate 

classes  of  property  and  the 

apportionment      of      state 

taxes  among  the  counties 

(i)      .              ... 

51,852 

56,671 

75 

306. 

Amending  the  constitutional 

requirement  of  equal  and 

uniform  taxation  (i)      .     . 

52,045 

54,483 

74 

308. 

Excepting     laws     regulating 

taxation  or  exemption  from 

"emergency"      legislation, 

and  repealing  the  constitu- 

tional provisions  which  re- 

quired all  laws  regulating 

taxation      or      exemption 

throughout  the  state  to  be 

referred  to  the  people,  ex- 

empted from  constitutional 

restrictions  all  measures  ap- 

proved by  the  people,  de- 

claring what  should  be  sub- 

ject to  taxation  or  exemp- 

tion and  how  it  should  be 

taxed  or  exempted,  and  au- 

thorized each    county    to 

regulate  taxation  and  ex- 

emption subject  to  general 

laws  of  the  state  (i)       .     . 

63,881  * 

47,150 

77 

44 

310. 

Requiring  a  majority  of  the 

votes  cast  at  the  election 

for  the  approval  of  constitu- 

tional amendments  (i) 

32,934 

70,325 

72 

312. 

Providing  for  double  liability 

of  bank  stockholders  (i) 

82,981* 

2i,738 

73 

58 

248     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1912  —  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
or  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

322. 

Requiring  a  majority  of  the 

votes  cast  at  the  election 

for  the  approval  of  initiated 

measures  (2)     

35,721 

68,861 

7? 

342. 

Exempting  indebtedness  for 

f  w 

roads   from    the    constitu- 

tional maximum  of   state 

indebtedness,  and  limiting 

state  indebtedness  for  roads 

to  a  percentage  of  the  valu- 

ation  of   the  property   in 

the  state.         "Harmony" 

amendment  (2)     .     .     .     . 

59,452  * 

43,447 

71 

34<5- 

Limiting  county  indebtedness 

for  roads.        "Harmony" 

amendment  (2)          ... 

57,258  * 

43,858 

70 

40 

350. 

Permitting    taxation    of    in- 

comes (2)     

52,702 

52,948 

73 

360. 

Granting  home  rule  to  coun- 

ties in  the  matter  of  indebt- 

edness   for  roads.    "Jack- 

son  County"   amendment 

(2)      

38,568 

63,481 

362. 

Reorganizing  extensively  the 

legislative  department  (2) 

31,020 

71,183 

7i 

364- 

Modified  single  tax  .... 

3i,534 

82,015 

79 

Bills 

314- 

Providing  for  the  regulation 

of  public  utilities  (3)      .     . 

65,985  * 

40,956 

74 

46 

318. 

Creating  Cascade  county  (2) 

26,463 

71,239 

68 

320. 

Providing  a  millage  tax    for 

the  university  and  the  agri- 

cultural college  and  consoli- 

dating the  government  of 

these  institutions  (2)      .     . 

48,701 

57,279 

74 

324- 

Authorizing     the     issue     of 

county   bonds    for    roads. 

Grange  bill  (2)      .... 

49,699 

56,713 

74 

326. 

Creating  a  state  highway  de- 

partment. Grange  bill  (2) 

23,872 

83,846 

75 

328. 

Putting  into  immediate  effect 

the  state-printer  flat-salary 

law  (2)    

34,793 

69,542 

72 

Appendix 


249 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1012  —  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

330. 

Creating  the  office  of  hotel 

inspector  (2)     

i6,gio 

OI.OO^ 

76 

332. 

Providing  for  an  eight-hour 

X**jrSrJ 

/  ** 

day  on  public  works  (2) 

64,508  * 

48,078 

78 

45 

334- 

Regulating  corporations  deal- 

ing with  corporate  securities 

and  establishing  a  corpora- 

tion   department.    "Blue- 

sky"  bill  (2)     

48,765 

57,293 

74 

336. 

Prohibiting  the  employment 

of  state  prisoners  by  pri- 

vate   persons,     and     au- 

thorizing    their     employ- 

ment   by    the    state    and 

counties  (2) 

73,800  * 

^7  AO2 

77 

SI 

338. 

Prohibiting  the  employment 

o  /  ,ty~ 

/  / 

^* 

of  local  prisoners  by  private 

persons     and     authorizing 

their  employment  by  the 

counties  (2)      

71,367  * 

37,731 

76 

So 

340. 

Creating  a  state  road  board 

and  authorizing  the  issue 

of      state     road      bonds. 

"Harmony"  bill  (2)       .     . 

30,897 

75,590 

74 

344- 

Authorizing     the     issue     of 

county    bonds   for   roads. 

"Harmony"  bill  (2)       .     . 

43,6ii 

60,210 

72 

348. 

Providing   methods   for  the 

consolidation  of  cities  and 

the    organization    of    new 

counties  (2)      

dO.IQO 

56,992 

67 

352. 

Exempting  household  goods 

*T**I  i  yy 

from  taxation  (2)       .     .     . 

60,357    * 

51,826 

78 

42 

354- 

Exempting  moneys  and  cred- 

its from  taxation  (2)      .     . 

42,491 

66,540 

76 

356. 

Revising  the  inheritance  tax 

laws  (2)        

38,609 

63,839 

71 

358. 

Regulating  freight  rates  (2) 

58,306    * 

45,534 

72 

40 

366. 

Abolishing     capital     punish- 

ment   and    regulating   the 

pardoning  power  (2)      .     . 

41,951 

64,578 

74 

368. 

Prohibiting     boycotting     or 

picketing    of    shops,    etc. 

(2)  

49,826 

60,560 

77 

250     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1912  — Continued 


PERCENTAGE 

OF  TOTAL 

MAJORITY- 

NUMBER 

YES 

No 

VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 

BY  EACH 

VOTE  CAST 

MEASURE 

370. 

Prohibiting,     in    the    larger 

towns,  the  use  of  streets, 

etc.,  for  public  meetings  or 

discussions  without  the  con- 

sent of  the  mayor  (2)     .     . 

48,g87 

62,532 

77 

372. 

Appropriation  for  the  univer- 

sity (3)    

29,437 

78,985 

7e 

374- 

Appropriation  for  the  univer- 

f O 

sity  (3)    

27,310 

79,376 

74 

1  1 

SPECIAL   ELECTION,   1913 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  102,276. 

No  state  officers  elected. 


PERCENTAGE 

OF  TOTAL 

MAJORITY- 

NUMBER 

YES 

No 

VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 

BY  EACH 

VOTE  CAST 

MEASURE 

Bills 

300. 

Appropriation  for  the  univer- 

sity (3)    

56,659  * 

40,600 

95 

55 

302. 

Appropriation  for  the  univer- 

sity (3)    

53,569  * 

43,014 

94 

52 

304. 

Providing   for   the   steriliza- 

tion of  habitual  criminals 

and  other  degenerates  (3) 

4i,767 

53,319 

93 

306. 

Increasing  the  number  of  dis- 

trict attorneys  (3)     ... 

54,179  * 

38,159 

90 

53 

308. 

Creating  an  industrial  acci- 

dent commission  and  regu- 

lating    workmen's     com- 

pensation for  injuries  (3) 

67,814  * 

28,608 

94 

66 

Appendix 


251 


GENERAL  ELECTION,   1914 
Total  number  of  ballots  cast,  259,868. 
Average  percentage  vote  for  state  officers,  82. 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
or  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

Constitutional  A  mendments 

300. 

Requiring  voters  to  be  citizens 

of  the  United  States  (i) 

164,879  * 

39,847 

79 

64 

302. 

Creating    the    office    of    lieu- 

tenant-governor (i)        .     . 

52,040 

143,804 

75 

304- 

Permitting  the  consolidation 

of  large  cities  with  coun- 

ties (i)    

77>392 

103,194 

70 

306. 

Reducing    constitutional    re- 

strictions   upon    state    in- 

debtedness   for    irrigation 

and  power  projects  and  de- 

velopment of  the  untilled 

lands  of  the  state  (i)     .     . 

49,759 

135,550 

7i 

308. 

Abolishing  the  constitutional 

requirement  of  equal  and 

uniform  taxation  (i)      .     . 

59,206 

116,490 

67 

310. 

Permitting  the  classification 

of   property   for   taxation, 

the  imposition   of  income 

taxes,   and   reasonable   ex- 

emptions from  taxation  (i) 

52,362 

122,704 

67 

314- 

Permitting  the  merger  of  ad- 

jacent cities  (i)     .     .     .     . 

96,116* 

77,671 

67 

37 

318. 

Increasing  the  compensation 

of  the  members  of  the  legis- 

lative assembly  (i)    .     .     . 

41,087 

146,278 

72 

320. 

Establishing  a  universal  eight- 

hour  labor  day  (2)     .     .     . 

49,36o 

167,888 

84 

326. 

Providing  for  the  exemption 

of  personal   property  and 

improvements  on   land  to 

the  extent  of  fifteen  hun- 

dred dollars  for  each  per- 

son from  taxation  (2)     .     . 

65,495 

136,193 

78 

328. 

Prohibiting  the  sale  and  au- 

thorizing the  lease  of  the 

beds  of  navigable  waters, 

and   authorizing   the   con- 

struction     of      municipal 

docks  on  such  lands  (2) 

67,128 

"4,564 

70 

252     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1914  —  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

332. 

State-wide  prohibition  of  the 

liquor  traffic  (2)    .... 

136,842  * 

100,362 

9i 

53 

334- 

Abolishing    the    death    pen- 

alty (2)        

j.oo.^2  * 

TOO  1Q1 

77 

3O 

336. 

Providing  for  a  specific  per- 

±\s*SfJJ*. 

iww»oyj 

ow 

sonal  graduated  extra  tax 

on  owners  of  land  (2)     .     . 

59,186 

124,943 

7i 

342. 

Extending  the  term  of  certain 

county    offices    from    two 

years  to  four  years  (2) 

82,841 

107,039 

73 

348. 

Providing  for  the  election  of 

the  house  of  representatives 

by  proportional  representa- 

tion (2)   

39,740 

137,116 

68 

350. 

Abolishing  the  state   senate 

(2)      

62.376 

123.  42O 

72 

352. 

Establishing  a  department  of 

W*IO  /  w 

*  "•J)tr~y 

industry  and  public  works 

for  the   unemployed,    and 

imposing  an  inheritance  tax 

for  its  maintenance  (2) 

57,859 

I26,2OI 

7i 

356- 

Adding  provisions  permitting 

a  uniform   three-hundred- 

dollar  tax  exemption  to  the 

section  of  the  constitution 

which  requires  equal  and 

uniform  taxation  and  au- 

thorizes certain  exemptions 

from  taxation,  and  prohibit- 

ing the  amendment  of  this 

section  except  by  a  two- 

thirds  vote  of  those  voting 

on  the  issue  at  the  election 

(2)      

X3    28O 

IAO.  ?O7 

71 

Bills 

*tO  >*'-'*•' 

**tv,  j**i 

312. 

Providing  a  millage  tax  for 

the  Southern  Oregon  nor- 

mal school  (i)       .... 

84,041 

100,643 

75 

316. 

Providing  a  millage  tax  for 

the   Eastern   Oregon  nor- 

mal school  (i)       .... 

87,450 

105,345 

74 

322. 

Providing  for  an  eight-hour 

labor  day  and  room  ventila- 

tion for  female  workers  (2) 

88,480 

120,296 

80 

Appendix 


253 


GENERAL  ELECTION,  1914  —  Continued 


NUMBER 

YES 

No 

PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 
RECEIVED 
BY  EACH 
MEASURE 

MAJORITY- 
PERCENTAGE 
OF  TOTAL 
VOTE  CAST 

324- 

Providing  for  non-partisan 
nomination  of  judicial  of- 
ficers (2)  

74)323 

107,263 

70 

330. 

Authorizing  cities  to  con- 
struct and  operate  munici- 
pal docks,  etc.,  within  the 
city  or  within  five  miles 
of  its  limits,  and  authoriz- 
ing the  lease  of  submerged 
lands  (2)  

67  no 

in  113 

60 

338. 

Consolidating  the  corpora- 
tion and  insurance  depart- 
ments (2)  

55,469 

120,154 

68 

340. 

Regulating  the  licensing  of 
dentists  (2)  

92,722 

1  10,404 

78 

344- 

Providing  for  a  tax-code  com- 
mission (2)  

34.  4.36 

14.3.  d68 

69 

346. 

Consolidating  the  state  land 
board  and  the  desert  land 
board  (2)  

32,701 

143,366 

68 

354- 

Providing  for  a  pre-primary 
convention,  and  amending 
the  presidential  primary 
law  (2)  

25,058 

153,638 

69 

254     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

IV.  A  MEASURE  AND  ARGUMENTS 

Referendum  Pamphlet,  1912,  pp.  209—25 

AN  AMENDMENT 

TO   THE 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  OREGON  TO  BE  SUB- 
MITTED TO  THE  LEGAL  VOTERS  OF  THE  STATE 
OF  OREGON  FOR  THEIR  APPROVAL 
OR  REJECTION 

AT   THE 

REGULAR  GENERAL  ELECTION 

TO  BE  HELD 

ON  THE  FIFTH  DAY  or  NOVEMBER,  1912 

TO  AMEND 

ARTICLE  IV 

By  initiative  petition  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  July  3, 

1912,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Chapter  226, 

General  Laws  of  Oregon,  1907. 


Printed  in  pursuance  of  Section  8  of  Chapter  226,  Laws  of  1907. 

SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 

The  following  is  the  form  and  number  in  which  the  question  will  be 
printed  on  the  official  ballot : 

PROPOSED   BY  INITIATIVE  PETITION 

For  amendment  of  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of 
Oregon  abolishing  the  State  Senate ;  providing 
none  but  registered  voters  be  counted  on  initia- 
tive or  referendum  petitions;  increasing  State 
and  municipal  referendum  powers ;  House  of 
Representatives  to  consist  of  sixty  elective  mem- 
bers, and  the  Governor  and  unsuccessful  party 
candidates  for  Governor  to  be  ex-qfficio  members ; 


Appendix  255 

Governor  to  introduce  all  appropriation  bills, 
legislature  not  to  increase  the  amounts  thereof, 
four-year  terms,  annual  sessions ;  proportional 
election  of  members ;  proxy  system  of  voting  on 
bills,  and  those  introduced  after  twenty  days  to 
go  to  the  next  session ;  control  and  revocation  of 
franchises.  Vote  YES  or  NO. 

362. Yes. 

363. No. 

(On  Official  Ballot,  Nos.  362  and  363.) 

Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Oregon  shall  be  and 
the  same  hereby  is  amended  to  read  as  follows : 

ARTICLE  IV 

SECTION  i.  The  legislative  authority  of  the  State  shall  be  vested  in 
the  Legislative  Assembly  consisting  of  a  House  of  Representatives, 
but  the  people  reserve  to  themselves  the  power  to  propose  legislative 
measures,  resolutions,  laws  and  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  and 
to  enact  or  reject  the  same  at  the  polls,  independent  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly,  and  also  reserve  power,  at  their  own  option,  to  approve  or 
reject  at  the  polls  any  act,  item,  section  or  part  of  any  resolution,  act 
or  measure  passed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly.  The  Senate  is  hereby 
abolished  from  and  after  the  adoption  of  this  amendment. 

SEC.  i  a.  The  first  power  reserved  by  the  people  is  the  initiative, 
and  not  more  than  eight  per  cent,  nor  in  any  case  more  than  fifty 
thousand,  of  the  legal  voters  shall  be  required  to  propose  any  meas- 
ure by  initiative  petition,  and  every  such  petition  shall  include  the 
full  text  of  the  measure  so  proposed.  Initiative  petitions,  except 
for  municipal  and  wholly  local  legislation,  shall  be  filed  with  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  not  less  than  four  months  before  the  election  at  which 
they  are  to  be  voted  upon.  If  conflicting  measures  submitted  to  the 
people  shall  be  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  severally  cast  for 
and  against  the  same,  the  one  receiving  the  highest  number  of  affirma- 
tive votes  shall  thereby  become  law  as  to  all  conflicting  provisions. 
Proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution  shall  in  all  cases  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  for  approval  or  rejection. 


256     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

SEC.  i  b.  The  second  power  is  the  referendum,  and  it  may  be 
ordered  either  by  petition  signed  by  the  required  percentage  of  the 
legal  voters,  or  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  as  other  bills  are  enacted. 
Not  more  than  five  per  cent,  nor  in  any  case  more  than  thirty  thousand 
of  the  legal  voters  shall  be  required  to  sign  and  make  a  valid  referen- 
dum petition.  Only  signatures  of  legal  voters  whose  names  are  on 
the  registration  books  and  records  shall  be  counted  on  initiative  and 
on  referendum  petitions. 

SEC.  ic.  If  it  shall  be  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation 
of  the  public  peace,  health  or  safety  that  a  measure  shall  become 
effective  without  delay  such  necessity  shall  be  stated  in  one  section, 
and  if,  by  a  vote  of  yeas  and  nays,  three-fourths  of  all  the  members 
shall  vote,  on  a  separate  roll  call,  in  favor  of  the  measure  going  into 
instant  operation  because  it  is  necessary  for  the  immediate  preserva- 
tion of  the  public  peace,  health  or  safety,  such  measure  shall 
become  operative  upon  being  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  or  city  clerk,  as  the  case  may  be ;  provided,  that  an  emergency 
shall  not  be  declared  on  any  measure  creating  or  abolishing  any 
office,  or  to  change  the  salary,  term  or  duties  of  any  officer.  It  shall 
not  be  necessary  to  state  in  such  section  the  facts  which  constitute 
the  emergency.  If  a  referendum  petition  be  filed  against  an  emer- 
gency measure,  such  measure  shall  be  a  law  until  it  is  voted  upon  by 
the  people,  and  if  it  is  then  rejected  by  a  majority  of  those  voting 
upon  the  question,  such  measure  shall  be  thereby  repealed.  No 
statute,  ordinance  or  resolution  approved  by  vote  of  the  people  shall 
be  amended  or  repealed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  or  any  city 
council  except  by  a  three-fourths  vote  of  all  the  members,  taken  by 
yeas  and  nays.  The  provisions  of  this  section  apply  to  city  councils. 

SEC.  id.  The  initiative  and  referendum  powers  of  the  people 
are  hereby  further  reserved  to  the  legal  voters  of  each  municipality 
and  district  as  to  all  local,  special  and  municipal  legislation  of  every 
character  in  or  for  their  respective  municipalities  and  districts.  Every 
extension,  enlargement,  purchase,  grant  or  conveyance  of  a  franchise, 
or  of  any  right,  property,  easement,  lease  or  occupation  of  or  in  any 
road,  street,  alley  or  park,  or  any  part  thereof,  or  in  any  real  property 
or  interest  in  any  real  property  owned  by  a  municipal  corporation, 
whether  the  same  be  made  by  statute,  ordinance,  resolution  or  other- 
wise, shall  be  subject  to  referendum  by  petition.  In  the  case  of  laws 


Appendix  257 

chiefly  of  local  interest,  whether  submitted  by  initiative  or  referendum 
petition,  or  by  the  Legislative  Assembly,  as  for  example,  the  division  or 
creation  of  counties,  or  the  creation  of  new  or  additional  offices  or 
officers,  the  same  shall  be  voted  on  and  approved  or  rejected  only  by 
the  people  of  the  locality  chiefly  interested,  except  when  the  Legislative 
Assembly  shall  order  the  measure  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  State. 
Cities  and  towns  may  provide  for  the  manner  of  exercising  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum  powers  as  to  their  municipal  legislation,  subject  to 
the  general  laws  of  the  State.  Not  more  than  ten  per  cent  of  the  legal 
voters  may  be  required  to  order  the  referendum  nor  more  than  fifteen 
per  cent  to  propose  any  measure  by  the  initiative  in  any  city  or  town. 
SEC.  le.  The  filing  of  a  referendum  petition  against  one  or  more 
items,  sections  or  parts  of  any  act,  legislative  measure,  resolution 
or  ordinance  shall  not  delay  the  remainder  of  the  measure  from  becom- 
ing operative.  Referendum  petitions  against  measures  passed  by 
the  Legislative  Assembly  shall  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State 
not  later  than  ninety  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  the  session 
of  the  Legislative  Assembly  at  which  the  measure  on  which  the  refer- 
endum is  demanded  was  passed ;  except  when  the  Legislative  Assem- 
bly shall  adjourn  at  any  time  temporarily  for  a  period  longer  than 
ninety  days,  in  which  case  such  referendum  petitions  shall  be  filed 
not  later  than  ninety  days  after  such  temporary  adjournment.  The 
veto  power  of  the  Governor  or  of  a  mayor  shall  not  extend  to  measures 
initiated  by  or  referred  to  the  people.  All  elections  on  general,  local 
and  special  measures  referred  to  the  people  of  the  State  or  of  any 
locality  shall  be  had  at  the  regular  general  elections,  occurring  not 
less  than  four  months  after  the  petition  is  filed,  except  when  the 
Legislative  Assembly  shall  order  a  special  election  ;  but  counties,  cities 
and  towns  may  provide  for  special  elections  on  their  municipal  legisla- 
tion proposed  by  their  citizens  or  local  legislative  bodies.  Any  meas- 
ure initiated  by  the  people  or  referred  to  the  people  as  herein  provided 
shall  take  effect  and  become  the  law  if  it  is  approved  by  a  majority 
of  the  votes  cast  thereon,  and  not  otherwise.  Every  such  measure 
shall  take  effect  thirty  days  after  the  election  at  which  it  is  approved. 
The  style  of  all  bills  shall  be," Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of"  (the 
State  of  Oregon,  or  name  of  county  or  other  municipality).  The  style 
of  charter  amendments  shall  be  similar  to  that  used  for  constitutional 
amendments.  This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  deprive  any 
s 


258     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  or  of  a  city  council  of  the  right  to 
introduce  any  measure.  The  whole  number  of  electors  who  voted  for 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  at  the  regular  election  last  preceding  the 
filing  of  any  petition  for  the  initiative  or  for  the  referendum  shall  be 
the  basis  on  which  the  number  of  registered  voters  necessary  to  sign 
such  petition  shall  be  computed.  Petitions  and  orders  for  the  initia- 
tive and  for  the  referendum  shall  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State, 
or  in  municipal  elections  with  the  county  or  city  clerk,  auditor,  or  such 
other  officers  as  may  be  provided  by  law.  In  submitting  the  same  to 
the  people,  he  and  all  other  officers  shall  be  guided  by  the  general  laws, 
until  additional  legislation  shall  be  especially  provided  therefor. 

SEC.  2.  The  Legislative  Assembly  shall  consist  of  a  House  of 
Representatives  of  sixty  elective  members  and  the  ex-officio  members 
herein  provided  for,  and  no  more.  They  shall  be  nominated,  appor- 
tioned and  elected  in  such  manner  and  from  such  districts  as  may 
be  provided  by  law,  but  districts  shall  be  composed  of  contiguous  terri- 
tory. The  term  of  office  for  Representatives  shall  be  four  years,  be- 
ginning on  the  day  next  after  the  regular  general  election  in  November, 
1914,  at  which  election  sixty  elective  Representatives  shall  be  elected, 
and  the  terms  of  all  Representatives  elected  prior  thereto  shall  expire. 
At  the  first  session  following  the  adoption  of  this  amendment  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  to  divide  the  State  into  dis- 
tricts for  the  election  of  representatives.  No  district  shall  have  less 
than  two  representatives  and  no  county  shall  be  divided  in  making  a 
representative  district. 

SEC.  3.  Representatives  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  shall  be 
chosen  by  the  legal  voters,  by  such  method  of  proportional  representa- 
tion of  all  the  voters  that,  as  nearly  as  may  be  practicable,  any  one 
sixtieth  of  all  the  voters  of  the  State  voting  for  one  person  for  Repre- 
sentative shall  insure  his  election. 

SEC.  30.  Until  otherwise  provided  by  law,  candidates  for  the 
office  of  Representative  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  shall  be  nomi- 
nated in  districts  in  like  manner  as  has  been  heretofore  provided  for 
their  election.  Each  candidate's  name  shall  be  printed  on  the  official 
ballot  in  the  district  where  he  resides,  but  in  no  other.  Any  legal 
voter  in  any  district  may  vote  for  a  candidate  in  any  other  district 
by  writing  or  sticking  on  his  ballot  the  name,  and,  if  necessary  to 
distinguish  him  from  another  candidate  of  the  same  name,  the  resi- 


Appendix  259 

dence,  political  party  or  pledge  of  the  candidate  voted  for.  Every 
candidate  for  Representative  at  the  general  election  shall  have  the 
right  to  have  printed  with  his  name  on  the  official  ballot  not  more  than 
twelve  words  to  state  his  political  party  or  pledges  to  the  people  on 
any  questions  of  public  policy.  No  voter  shall  vote  for  more  than  one 
candidate  for  Representative. 

SEC.  36.  The  votes  for  the  election  of  Representative  in  the 
Legislative  Assembly  shall  be  counted,  canvassed  and  returned,  and 
certificates  of  election  issued,  in  like  manner  as  such  votes  are  now 
counted,  canvassed  and  returned  in  the  election  of  joint  Representa- 
tives from  districts  composed  of  two  or  more  counties.  The  certificate 
shall  set  forth,  by  counties,  the  whole  number  of  votes  given  in  the 
State  for  the  person  to  whom  it  is  issued. 

SEC.  3C.  In  a  district  entitled  to  two  Representatives,  the  two 
candidates  who  shall  severally  receive  the  highest  number  of  votes 
shall  be  thereby  elected.  In  a  district  entitled  to  three  representa- 
tives, the  three  candidates  who  shall  severally  receive  the  highest 
number  of  votes  shall  be  thereby  elected,  and  so  on  in  every  district, 
applying  a  similar  rule,  whatever  may  be  the  number  of  Represen- 
tatives to  be  elected  from  the  district.  Every  Representative  is 
the  proxy  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  for  all  the  electors  who  voted 
for  him.  In  voting  on  any  bill,  resolution,  memorial  or  other  roll  call 
each  member  shall  cast  for  or  against  the  same  the  number  of  votes  he 
so  represents.  A  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  throughout  the  State 
for  candidates  for  Representative  and  represented  in  the  Legislative 
Assembly  as  in  this  article  provided  shall  be  necessary  to  pass  any 
measure  in  that  body,  except  when  voting  on  emergency  sections  as 
provided  in  section  ic  of  this  article. 

SEC.  3</.  The  Governor  shall  be  ex-officio  a  member  of  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly.  Every  candidate  for  Governor  who  shall  receive 
a  higher  number  of  votes  for  that  office  than  are  cast  for  any  other 
candidate  of  his  political  party  for  Governor  shall  be  ex-officio  a 
member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly ;  provided,  that  his  political  party 
was  entitled  to  recognition  as  such  by  the  laws  of  Oregon  at  the 
preceding  regular  general  election.  Every  such  ex-officio  member  is 
the  proxy  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  for  the  total  number  of  electors 
in  the  State  who  voted  for  unsuccessful  candidates  of  his  party  for 
Representative  in  the  Legislative  Assembly,  and  every  such  ex-officio 


260     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

member  shall  cast  that  number  of  votes  for  or  against  any  measure 
on  any  roll  call.  This  section  shall  be  operative  from  and  after  the 
general  election  in  November,  A.D.,  1914. 

SEC.  36.  The  Governor  shall  have  a  seat  in  the  Legislative  As- 
sembly elected  in  November,  A.D.,  1912,  and  shall  be  a  member  of 
that  Assembly  for  all  the  purposes  of  this  section ;  he  shall  have  a 
member's  right  to  speak  and  introduce  measures.  It  is  the  Governor's 
duty  to  introduce  all  bills  necessary  for  the  appropriation  of  public 
money.  No  money  shall  be  appropriated  by  resolution  or  by  any 
other  method  than  by  bill,  and  no  member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly 
other  than  the  Governor  shall  introduce  any  bill  appropriating  public 
money  except  for  an  appropriation  to  be  referred  to  the  people  of 
the  State  for  approval  or  rejection.  The  Governor  shall  not  veto  any 
bill  passed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly.  The  Legislative  Assembly 
may  reduce  the  amount  asked  for  any  purpose  by  the  Governor,  but 
shall  not  have  power  to  increase  any  such  amount  without  the  consent 
of  the  Governor  entered  in  the  journal  and  signed  by  him.  The 
Governor  shall  answer  all  questions  that  may  be  put  to  him  in  writing 
by  any  member  concerning  the  administration  of  the  government  or 
any  department  thereof,  save  that  when  such  answers,  if  made  public, 
might  give  information  that  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  public  interest, 
upon  the  Governor's  statement  of  that  fact,  the  answer  may  be  with- 
held until  the  emergency  is  past. 

SEC.  3/.  No  money  shall  ever  be  appropriated  or  paid  from  the 
public  funds  to  pay  all  or  any  part  of  the  cost  or  expense  of  making 
or  obtaining  initiative  or  referendum  petitions  or  signatures  thereto, 
either  those  that  have  been  circulated  or  that  may  be  circulated  here- 
after. The  Legislative  Assembly  shall  not  appoint  or  create  any  com- 
mittee, board  or  commission  to  prepare  or  propose  any  measure  by 
initiative  petition. 

SEC.  4.  If  a  vacancy  shall  occur  in  any  elective  legislative  office, 
the  Governor  shall  forthwith  order  a  special  election  to  elect  an 
officer  to  fill  the  unexpired  term.  If  the  vacancy  shall  be  in  the  office 
of  a  member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  the  person  elected  to  fill  the 
vacancy  shall  represent  and  cast  the  number  of  votes  on  any  roll  call 
which  were  represented  by  the  officer  he  succeeds.  If  the  vacancy 
shall  be  in  the  office  of  an  ex-officio  member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly 
other  than  the  Governor  the  members  of  his  political  party  in  the 


Appendix  261 

Legislative  Assembly  shall  elect  his  successor.  If  the  office  of  Gover- 
nor shall  become  vacant  for  any  reason  except  by  recall  the  Secretary 
of  State  shall  forthwith  order  a  special  general  election  to  be  held 
within  sixty  days  to  elect  a  Governor  to  fill  the  unexpired  term. 

SEC.  5.  No  person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  is  not  a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  his  election,  nor  unless 
he  shall  be  at  least  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  a  resident  of  this 
State  at  least  five  years,  and  of  his  district  at  least  one  year  before 
his  election. 

SEC.  6.  Appropriations  shall  be  made  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
State  Government  and  all  existing  public  institutions,  and  all  institu- 
tions aided  by  State  funds.  But  this  section  shall  not  be  construed 
as  limiting  the  power  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  to  change,  abolish 
or  refuse  aid  to  any  institution  created  by  law  or  which  has  hereto- 
fore been  aided  by  this  State. 

SEC.  7.  Representatives  in  all  cases,  except  for  treason,  felony 
or  breaches  of  the  peace,  shall  be  privileged  from  arrest  during  the 
session  of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  and  in  going  to  and  returning 
from  the  same ;  and  shall  not  be  subject  to  any  civil  process  during  the 
session  of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  nor  during  the  fifteen  days  next 
before  the  commencement  thereof.  Nor  shall  a  member,  for  words 
uttered  in  debate,  be  questioned  in  any  other  place. 

SEC.  8.  The  sessions  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  shall  be  held 
annually  at  the  capitol  of  the  State,  commencing  at  such  dates  as  may 
be  provided  by  law. 

SEC.  9.  The  Legislative  Assembly,  when  assembled,  shall  choose 
and  may  discharge  its  own  officers  and  standing  committees,  judge  of 
the  election,  qualifications  and  returns  of  its  own  members,  determine 
its  own  rules  of  proceeding,  and  sit  upon  its  own  adjournment.  The 
presiding  officer  shall  not  be  a  member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly 
nor  hold  any  other  office  at  the  same  time.  He  shall  not  appoint 
standing  committees,  and  shall  have  no  voice  or  vote  on  Legislative 
business.  He  shall  preside  over  the  sessions  of  the  body  and  have 
such  powers  as  may  be  conferred  upon  him  not  contrary  to  the  provi- 
sions of  this  article. 

SEC.  10.  Two  thirds  of  the  members  elected  shall  constitute  a 
quorum  to  do  business,  but  a  smaller  number  may  meet,  adjourn  from 
day  to  day,  and  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members.  A  quorum 


262     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

being  in  attendance,  if  the  Legislative  Assembly  fails  to  effect  an 
organization  within  the  first  five  days  thereafter,  the  members  shall 
be  entitled  to  no  compensation  from  the  end  of  the  said  five  days 
until  an  organization  shall  have  been  effected. 

SEC.  ii.  The  Legislative  Assembly  shall  keep  a  journal  of  its 
proceedings.  The  yeas  and  nays  on  any  question  shall,  at  the  request 
of  any  two  members,  be  entered,  together  with  the  names  of  the  mem- 
bers demanding  the  same,  on  the  journal ;  provided,  that  on  a  motion 
to  adjourn,  it  shall  require  one  tenth  of  the  members  present  to  order 
the  yeas  and  nays. 

SEC.  12.  The  doors  of  the  House  and  of  all  committees  shall  be 
kept  open,  except  only  in  such  cases  as  in  the  opinion  of  the  House 
require  secrecy,  but  in  every  such  case  the  yeas  and  nays  shall  be 
entered  on  the  journal.  Committees  shall  be  liberal  in  allowing  public 
hearings  on  measures ;  the  chairman  of  every  committee  shall  notify 
in  writing  all  persons  who  advise  the  committee  of  their  desire  to  be 
heard  on  any  measure  in  its  charge  of  the  time  of  such  hearing. 

SEC.  13.  The  House  may  punish  its  members  for  disorderly 
behavior,  and  may,  upon  a  roll  call,  with  the  concurrence  of  two 
thirds,  expel  a  member ;  but  not  a  second  time  for  the  same  cause. 

SEC.  14.  The  House,  during  its  session,  may  punish  by  imprison- 
ment any  person  not  a  member,  who  shall  have  been  guilty  of  disre- 
spect to  the  House,  by  disorderly  or  contemptuous  behavior  in  its 
presence,  but  such  imprisonment  shall  not  at  any  time  exceed  twenty- 
four  hours. 

SEC.  15.  The  Legislative  Assembly  shall  have  all  powers  neces- 
sary for  the  Legislative  department  of  a  free  and  independent  State. 

SEC.  16.  Every  bill  shall  be  read  by  sections,  on  three  several 
days,  unless  in  case  of  emergency,  two  thirds  of  the  members  shall, 
by  a  vote  of  yeas  and  nays,  deem  it  expedient  to  dispense  with  this 
rule ;  but  the  reading  of  a  bill  by  sections  on  its  final  passage  shall  in 
no  case  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  every  bill 
or  joint  resolution  shall  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays. 

SEC.  17.  Every  act  shall  embrace  but  one  subject,  and  matters 
properly  connected  therewith,  which  subjects  shall  be  expressed  in  the 
title.  But  if  any  subject  shall  be  embraced  in  an  act  which  shall  not 
be  expressed  in  the  title,  such  act  shall  be  void  only  as  to  so  much 
thereof  as  shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title. 


Appendix  263 

SEC.  1 8.  Every  act  and  resolution  shall  be  plainly  worded, 
avoiding,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  use  of  technical  terms. 

SEC.  19.  No  act  shall  ever  be  revised  or  amended  by  mere 
reference  to  its  title,  but  the  act  revised  or  section  amended 
shall  be  set  forth  and  published  at  full  length.  All  laws  may  be 
altered,  amended  or  repealed  at  any  time,  and  no  law  shall  ever  be 
construed  to  be  a  contract  on  the  part  of  the  State  or  of  any  mu- 
nicipality therein. 

SEC.  20.  No  grant,  franchise,  permit,  power  or  privilege  given 
to,  purchased  by,  or  conveyed  or  contracted  to  any  corporation,  public 
or  qui*i  public  or  private,  or  to  any  individual  or  aggregation  of 
individuals,  or  in  any  way  whatsoever  to  serve  the  public,  shall  be  for 
a  longer  period  than  thirty  years.  Every  such  grant,  permit,  power, 
franchise  and  privilege  and  the  use  thereof  shall  always  be  subject 
to  regulation  and  control  in  every  and  all  respects  and  particulars  by 
the  authority  granting  the  same  or  by  its  successors,  and  shall  at  any 
time  be  revocable  and  terminable  at  the  option  of  said  authority ;  in 
the  case  of  such  revocation  or  termination,  the  plant  and  property 
acquired  and  used  in  connection  with  such  grant,  permit,  franchise, 
power  or  privilege  may  be  appropriated  to  the  public  use  on  paying 
to  the  owners  the  value  thereof  with  a  premium  thereon  not  exceeding 
twenty  per  cent  of  such  value;  there  shall  not  be  included  in  such 
reasonable  value  nor  in  such  premium  either  all  or  any  part  of  the 
value  of  such  grant,  permit,  franchise,  power  or  privilege.  The  value 
so  appropriated  to  be  compensated  for  shall  be  determined  by  ascer- 
taining the  reasonable  value  of  the  plant  and  property  so  appropriated 
for  public  use  in  its  physical  condition  at  the  time  of  such  appropria- 
tion. If  the  State  or  local  government  having  authority  to  renew  any 
such  grant,  permit,  franchise  [,]  power  or  privilege  shall  refuse  to  renew 
the  same  and  shall  refuse  to  allow  the  owners  of  the  aforesaid  physical 
property  to  continue  said  public  service  business  at  and  after  the 
expiration  of  said  thirty  years,  then  said  government  shall  pay  to  the 
owners  the  reasonable  value  of  the  physical  plant  and  property  used 
by  them  in  conducting  said  business.  This  section  shall  be  considered 
as  a  part  of  every  such  grant,  permit,  franchise,  power  and  privilege 
made  hereafter. 

SEC.  21.  The  right  of  eminent  domain  may  be  exercised  by  the 
State  and  local  governments  as  to  any  and  all  property,  whether 


264     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

public,  quasi  public  or  private,  in  the  following  order  of  priority  except 
only  such  property  as  is  owned  by  the  National  Government : 

First.    The  right  of  the  State  shall  be  supreme. 

Second.  The  right  of  any  district  composed  of  more  than  one 
county. 

Third.    Any  county. 

Fourth.    Any  city  or  town. 

Fifth.  Any  district  composed  of  less  than  one  county.  In  case 
of  conflict  of  interest  between  two  of  such  public  authorities  which  are 
equal  in  the  right  of  priority,  the  one  having  the  larger  population  shall 
have  the  superior  right. 

SEC.  22.  The  Legislative  Assembly  shall  not  pass  special  or 
local  laws  in  any  of  the  following  enumerated  cases,  that  is  to  say : 

1.  Regulating  the  jurisdiction  and  duties  of  Justices  of  the  Peace, 
and  of  Constables. 

2.  For  the  punishment  of  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

3.  Regulating  the  practice  in  courts  of  justice. 

4.  Providing  for  changing  the  venue  in  civil  and  criminal  cases. 

5.  Granting  divorces. 

6.  Changing  the  names  of  persons. 

7.  For  laying,  opening  and  working  on  highways,  and  for  election 
or  appointment  of  supervisors ;  but  this  does  not  limit  the  right  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly  to  propose,  nor  the  power  of  the  people  to  ap- 
prove, any  act  or  appropriation  for  highways. 

8.  Vacating  roads,  town  plats,  streets,  alleys  and  public  squares. 

9.  Summoning  and  empaneling  grand  and  petit  jurors. 

10.  For  the  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes  for  State,  county, 
township  or  road  purposes. 

11.  Providing  for  the  support  of  common  schools,  and  for  the 
preservation  of  school  funds. 

12.  In  relation  to  interest  on  money. 

13.  Providing  for  opening  and  conducting  the  elections  of  State, 
county  or  township  officers,  and  designating  the  places  of  voting. 

14.  Providing  for  the  sale  of  real  estate  belonging  to  minors  or 
other  persons  laboring  under  legal  disabilities,  by  executors,  adminis- 
trators, guardians  or  trustees. 

15.  When  a  general  law  can  be  made  applicable. 

SEC.  23.    Provision  may  be  made  by  general  law  for  bringing 


Appendix  265 

suit  against  the  State,  as  to  all  liabilities  originating  after  or  existing 
at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  constitution ;  but  no  special  act 
authorizing  such  suit  to  be  brought,  or  making  compensation  to  any 
person  claiming  damages  against  the  State,  shall  ever  be  passed. 

SEC.  24.  A  majority  of  all  the  electors  represented  in  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  as  in  this  article  provided  shall  be  necessary  to  pass 
every  bill  or  resolution ;  and  all  bills  and  resolutions  so  passed  shall 
be  signed  by  the  Speaker  and  the  Chief  Clerk  and  filed  forthwith 
with  the  Secretary  of  State. 

SEC.  25.  Any  member  shall  have  the  right  to  protest,  and  have 
his  protest,  with  his  reasons  for  dissent,  entered  on  the  journal. 

SEC.  26.  Every  statute  shall  be  a  public  law,  unless  otherwise 
declared  in  the  statute  itself. 

SEC.  27.  No  act  shall  take  effect  until  ninety  days  from  the  end 
of  the  session  at  which  the  same  shall  have  been  passed,  except  in 
cases  of  emergency,  which  shall  be  declared  as  provided  in  Section  ic  of 
this  article. 

SEC.  28.  The  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  shall  receive 
for  their  services  a  sum  not  exceeding  three  dollars  a  day  from  the 
commencement  of  the  session ;  but  such  pay  shall  not  exceed  hi  the 
aggregate  one  hundred  and  twenty  dollars  for  per  diem  allowance 
for  any  one  session.  When  convened  in  extra  session  by  the  Governor, 
they  shall  receive  three  dollars  per  day;  but  no  extra  session  shall 
continue  for  a  longer  period  than  twenty  days.  They  shall  also  receive 
the  sum  of  three  dollars  for  every  twenty  miles  they  shall  travel  in 
going  to  and  returning  from  their  place  of  meeting,  on  the  most  usual 
route.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  shall,  in 
virtue  of  his  office,  receive  an  additional  compensation  equal  to  two- 
thirds  of  the  per  diem  allowance  of  members. 

SEC.  29.  No  Representative  shall,  during  the  time  for  which  he 
may  have  been  elected,  be  eligible  to  any  office  the  election  to  which 
is  vested  hi  the  Legislative  Assembly ;  nor  shall  he  be  appointed  to  any 
civil  office  of  profit  which  shall  have  been  created  or  the  emoluments 
of  which  have  been  increased  during  such  term,  but  this  latter  provi- 
sion shall  not  be  construed  to  apply  to  any  officer  elective  by  the  people. 

SEC.  30.  The  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  shall,  before 
they  enter  on  the  duties  of  their  office,  take  and  subscribe  the  following 
oath  of  office  or  affirmation : 


266     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

"I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm,  as  the  case  may  be)  that  I  will 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  of 
Oregon,  and  that  I  will  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  Representa- 
tive according  to  the  best  of  my  ability."  Said  oath  of  office  may  be 
administered  by  any  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

SEC.  31.  When  a  bill  is  introduced  it  shall  be  placed  upon  the 
calendar,  and  may  be  acted  upon  any  time  during  the  life  of  that 
Legislative  Assembly,  except  that  bills  introduced  after  the  twentieth 
day  of  any  session  shall  not  be  passed  at  that  session  unless  they  are 
emergency  measures.  No  measure,  except  an  emergency  bill,  shall  be 
passed  at  any  session  of  ^the  Legislative  Assembly  until  it  has  been 
printed  and  in  the  possession  of  the  members,  in  its  final  form,  at 
least  five  days.  No  measure  shall  be  altered  or  amended  on  its  passage 
so  as  to  change  its  original  purpose. 

SEC.  32.  A  majority  of  the  members,  representing  also  a  majority 
of  all  the  electors  in  the  State  who  voted  for  candidates  for  Representa- 
tive, may  at  any  time  unite  in  calling  a  special  session  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly. 

SEC.  33.  This  amendment  of  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  Ore- 
gon is  self-executing,  but  legislation  may  be  enacted  to  aid  and  facili- 
tate its  operation.  All  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  Oregon  which  conflict  with  this  amendment  of  Article  IV  or  any  part 
hereof,  are  hereby  abrogated  and  repealed  in  so  far  as  they  conflict 
herewith. 

(On  Official  Ballot,  Nos.  362  and  363.) 

ARGUMENT 

(affirmative) 

SUBMITTED   BY 

THE  PEOPLE'S  POWER  LEAGUE  OF  OREGON 

in  favor  of  the  measure  designated  on  the  official  ballot  as  follows : 

PROPOSED  BY  INITIATIVE  PETITION 

For  amendment  of  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of 
Oregon  abolishing  the  State  Senate ;  providing 
none  but  registered  voters  be  counted  on  initia- 
tive or  referendum  petitions ;  increasing  State 


Appendix  267 

and  municipal  referendum  powers;  House  of 
Representatives  to  consist  of  sixty  elective  mem- 
bers, and  the  Governor  and  unsuccessful  party 
candidates  for  governor  to  be  ex-officio  mem- 
bers; Governor  to  introduce  all  appropriation 
bills,  legislature  not  to  increase  the  amounts 
thereof,  four  year  terms,  annual  sessions ;  pro- 
portional election  of  members;  proxy  system 
of  voting  on  bills,  and  those  introduced  after 
twenty  days  to  go  to  the  next  session ;  control 
and  revocation  of  franchises.  Vote  YES  or  NO. 

362. Yes. 

363. No. 

THE  PEOPLE'S  POWER  LEAGUE  OF  OREGON 

Offers  this  argument  to  explain  and  advocate  the  approval  of  the 
proposed  amendment  of  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  Oregon. 
From  year  to  year  the  members  of  this  league  have  prepared  and  pro- 
posed to  the  people  the  measures  commonly  known  as  the  "Oregon 
System,"  including  the  Initiative,  Referendum,  Direct  Primary,  Re- 
call, Corrupt  Practices  Act,  Statement  No.  i  method  of  electing  United 
States  Senators,  Three  Fourths  Jury  Verdict  in  Civil  Cases,  Abolition 
of  Technicalities  on  Appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Presidential 
Primary,  and  City  Home  Rule  laws  and  Constitutional  Amendments. 

Every  measure  offered  by  the  People's  Power  League  of  Oregon  and 
approved  by  the  people  is  producing  better  results  than  were  promised 
by  the  League.  The  official  ballot  number  of  this  amendment  is 
Number  362  Yes,  Number  363  No. 

i.  The  adoption  of  this  amendment  will  result  hi  saving  nearly  a 
million  dollars  a  year  in  the  State  appropriations,  and  some  of  the 
members  of  the  League  believe  the  saving  will  be  much  greater.  In 
support  of  this  statement  we  call  your  attention  to  the  following  letter 
from  Governor  West : 


268     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

STATE  OF  OREGON,  Executive  Department,  Salem. 

June  26,  1912. 
HON.  W.  S.  U'REN,  Oregon  City,  Or. 

Dear  Sir :  I  am  in  receipt  of  yours  of  recent  date  in  which  you  ask 
as  to  what  reduction,  if  any,  could  be  had  in  appropriations  for  the 
years  1913-1914,  over  those  of  1911  and  1912  if  this  office  was  given 
the  control  of  all  appropriation  bills. 

In  reply  will  say  the  amount  required  for  the  expenses  of  the  State 
Government  for  1911  and  1912  was  in  round  numbers  $5,670,000.  If 
this  office  had  control  of  the  appropriation  bills  I  believe  the  1913  and 
1914  appropriations  could  easily  be  kept  down  to  $4,000,000,  and  with- 
out crippling  in  any  manner  our  State  institutions  or  denying  them 
anything  to  which  they  are  justly  entitled  in  the  way  of  maintenance 
or  improvements.  Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  OSWALD  WEST. 

This  amendment  gives  the  Governor  the  right  to  introduce  any 
measure  in  the  Legislature,  and  gives  him  sole  power  to  introduce  bills 
appropriating  public  money.  The  Legislature  may  reduce  any  appro- 
priation recommended  by  the  Governor,  but  cannot  increase  the 
amount  without  the  Governor's  consent.  The  Governor,  being  thus  a 
member  of  the  Legislature,  will  not  be  able  to  veto  bills.  (Please  read 
Section  y  of  the  amendment.) 

2.  The  amendment  abolishes  the  State  Senate,  which  is  a  useless 
and  unnecessary  expense.     By  abolishing  the  State  Senate,  the  people 
will  concentrate  all  legislative  responsibility  on  the  Representative 
alone,  and  thus  destroy  the  habit  of  politicians  and  pledge  breakers  of 
passing  a  bill  in  the  House  and  "killing  it  in  the  Senate,"  or  passing 
a  bill  in  the  Senate  and  "killing  it  in  the  House." 

The  Senate  is  an  imitation  of  the  British  House  of  Lords,  and  the 
imitation  was  copied  by  all  the  American  states  and  most  American 
cities.  During  the  last  thirty  years  most  of  the  cities  have  abolished 
the  imitation  half  of  their  city  councils  with  good  results.  Every  one 
knows  what  the  British  people  have  done  to  their  House  of  Lords 
within  the  last  two  years.  (See  Section  i  of  the  amendment.) 

3.  Sections  ic  and  id  of  the  amendment  greatly  strengthen  and 
extend  the  people's  State  and  local  referendum  powers  by  requiring  a 
three-fourths  majority  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  a  city  council,  to  amend 


Appendix  269 

or  repeal  any  measure  enacted  by  vote  of  the  people,  or  to  declare  an 
emergency  on  any  bill  or  ordinance  to  prevent  the  people  from  rejecting 
it  before  it  goes  into  operation. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  are  further  safeguarded  by  requiring 
that  none  except  registered  voters  shall  sign  initiative  or  referendum 
petitions. 

4.  The  amendment  establishes  the  proxy  system  of  proportional 
representation  of  all  the  voters  for  electing  members  of  the  Legislature 
and  passing  bills.    If  this  amendment  is  adopted,  every  political  party 
at  the  election  in  1914  and  thereafter  will  have  representation  in  the 
Legislature  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  its  voters  at  the  ballot  box. 

This  will  make  the  Legislature  as  progressive  as  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  that  will  greatly  reduce  the  necessity  for  constant  use  of  the 
initiative  hi  order  to  get  progressive  laws. 

This  amendment  will  make  it  impossible  for  a  few  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  voters  to  elect  59  of  the  60  Representatives,  as  was  done  by 
one  party  in  1906,  or  to  elect  58  of  the  60  Representatives  as  happened 
hi  1910.  This  proxy  system  of  proportional  representation  will  take 
effect  at  the  election  in  November,  1914.  (See  Sections  3  to  36  and 
Section  24.) 

5 .  By  Section  20,  every  franchise  or  permit  hereafter  granted  to  a  rail- 
road or  other  public  service  corporation  may  always  be  regulated  or  re- 
voked by  the  town,  city,  county  or  district  granting  the  same,  or  it  may 
be  purchased  by  the  town,  city,  county  or  district  at  an  advance  of  not 
more  than  20  per  cent  over  its  physical  value  or  cost,  but  nothing  is  to  be 
paid  or  allowed  for  the  franchise.    The  amendment  will  make  it  impos- 
sible to  turn  future  special  privileges  hi  to  private  property  hi  Oregon. 

6.  Section  21  defines  and  increases  the  power  of  eminent  domain 
which  may  be  used  by  State  and  local  governments  to  obtain  property 
for  public  use  by  paying  the  reasonable  value  thereof. 

There  are  other  and  less  important  provisions,  intended  to 
strengthen  those  already  mentioned.  The  Speaker  of  the  House  is  to 
be  only  a  presiding  officer,  without  a  vote  and  without  power  to  ap- 
point standing  committees. 

The  Legislature  will  meet  annually,  and  ample  provision  is  made  to 
prevent  hasty  legislation.  (See  Sections  8,  9,  31  and  32.) 

Under  this  amendment  no  law  can  be  construed  to  be  a  contract. 

The  members  of  the  People's  Power  League  believe  that  if  this 


270     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

amendment  is  adopted  by  the  people  it  will  result  in  a  great  saving  of 
money  and  in  a  very  great  decrease  in  the  number  of  laws.  The  British 
Parliament  holds  a  session  of  from  five  to  seven  months,  and  it  con- 
siders that  fifty  laws  is  a  large  number  to  be  passed  at  one  session. 
The  Oregon  Legislature  holds  a  session  of  forty  days,  and  at  the  ses- 
sion of  1911  that  body  passed  277  laws  and  41  resolutions  and  memo- 
rials. Respectfully  submitted, 

PEOPLE'S  POWER  LEAGUE  OF  OREGON. 

For  members  and  officers  of  this  League,  see  the  negative  argument 
for  amendment  of  Section  i  of  Article  XVII  of  the  Constitution  on 
page  35  of  this  book. 

(On  Official  Ballot,  Nos.  362  and  363.) 

ARGUMENT 

(negative) 

SUBMITTED  BY 

MARION  COUNTY  TAXPAYERS'  LEAGUE 
opposing  the  measure  designated  on  the  official  ballot  as  follows : 

PROPOSED   BY  INITIATIVE   PETITION 

For  amendment  of  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of 
Oregon  abolishing  the  State  Senate ;  providing 
none  but  registered  voters  be  counted  on  initia- 
tive or  referendum  petitions;  increasing  State 
and  municipal  referendum  powers ;  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives to  consist  of  sixty  elective  members, 
and  the  Governor  and  unsuccessful  party  candi- 
dates for  Governor  to  be  ex-officio  members ; 
Governor  to  introduce  all  appropriation  bills,  leg- 
islature not  to  increase  the  amounts  thereof,  four- 
year  terms,  annual  sessions;  proportional  elec- 
tion of  members ;  proxy  system  of  voting  on  bills, 
and  those  introduced  after  twenty  days  to  go  to  the 
next  session;  control  and  revocation  of  franchises.  Vote  YES  or  NO. 

362. Yes. 

363.  No.  


Appendix  271 

To  the  Voters  of  Oregon: 

The  proposed  amendment  to  Article  IV  of  the  State  Constitution  is 
the  most  drastic  measure  ever  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  State. 
It  provides  for  the  abolishment  of  the  State  Senate  and  the  creation 
of  a  legislative  body  consisting  of  a  single  branch.  The  experience  of 
this  and  other  countries  has  established  the  wisdom  of  legislative 
bodies  with  two  branches,  one  branch  acting  as  a  check  or  balance  upon 
the  other  and  thereby  preventing  the  enactment  of  hasty,  selfish  and 
ill-advised  legislation.  This  measure  also  proposes  to  abolish  the  veto 
power  of  the  Governor  —  a  power  generally  recognized  throughout 
civilized  nations.  With  a  one-chamber  legislature,  unrestrained  by 
the  executive  veto  power,  much  legislation  extremely  hostile  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  body  politic  and  the  taxpayers  would  be  certain 
of  enactment. 

The  system  of  proportional  representation  contemplated  by  Section 
2  of  the  proposed  measure,  would  mean  that  large  areas  of  territory 
would  practically  be  unrepresented  in  the  legislature,  as  representa- 
tives would  be  apportioned  strictly  according  to  population  with  a 
large  majority  coming  from  Multnomah  and  other  thickly  populated 
counties  in  Western  Oregon.  Under  the  proposed  arrangement, 
Multnomah  County  would  have  more  representation  than  the  com- 
bined representation  of  the  counties  of  Baker,  Crook,  Curry,  Gilliam, 
Grant,  Harney,  Hood  River,  Jackson,  Josephine,  Klamath,  Lake, 
Malheur,  Morrow,  Sherman,  Umatilla,  Union,  Wallowa,  Wasco  and 
Wheeler.  Large  counties  in  Eastern  Oregon  would  necessarily  be 
grouped  into  legislative  districts  and  a  sparsely  populated  county, 
such  as  Sherman,  united  with  a  thickly  populated  county,  such  as 
Wasco,  for  legislative  purposes,  would  be  unrepresented,  as  the  repre- 
sentatives would  undoubtedly  be  chosen  from  the  more  thickly  popu- 
lated county  of  the  district.  In  other  words,  such  counties  as  Grant, 
Harney,  Lake,  Gilliam,  Morrow,  Sherman,  Wheeler  and  Wallowa  could 
not  expect  to  secure  representation  hi  the  Oregon  legislature. 

In  stating  its  indictment  against  George  III,  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  charges : 

"He  has  refused  to  pass  other  laws  for  the  accommodation  of 
large  districts  of  people  unless  those  people  would  relinquish  the 
right  of  representation  in  the  legislature  —  a  right  inestimable  to 
them  and  formidable  to  tyrants  only." 


272     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

Our  forefathers  understood  by  the  right  of  representation  in  the 
legislature,  the  right  of  the  people  of  each  legislative  district  to  choose, 
by  a  majority  vote,  certain  men  to  sit  in  the  legislature  as  representa- 
tives of  that  district,  and  to  whom  the  people  of  that  district  had  a 
right  to  look  for  protection.  The  proposed  measure  destroys  this 
right.  What  the  State  of  Oregon  needs  is  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution providing  that  each  county,  regardless  of  size  or  population, 
shall  have  at  least  one  representative  in  the  lower  house  of  the  legisla- 
ture, and  that  additional  representation  be  apportioned  according  to 
population. 

The  system  of  proportional  representation  which  is  proposed  in  the 
pending  measure  means  minority  instead  of  majority  representation. 
Thus,  an  elector  in  Multnomah  County  would  vote  for  one  representa- 
tive, although  that  county  would  be  entitled  to  18  representatives. 
This  is  the  plan  followed  in  the  selection  of  delegates  to  the  recent 
national  conventions  at  Chicago  and  Baltimore.  It  did  not  work 
satisfactorily  as  it  disfranchised  the  elector  from  voting  for  the  full 
quota  of  his  party  delegates.  The  proposed  plan  of  selecting  legis- 
lators would  not  work  satisfactorily  as  it  would  disfranchise  the  elector 
from  voting  for  his  district's  full  quota  of  legislators. 

The  proxy  system  of  voting  in  the  legislature  would  result  in  great 
confusion  and  would  enable  a  few  men  representing  a  large  number  of 
voters  to  combine  and  defeat  legislation  emanating  from  less  popular 
men  who  had  received  a  similar  number  of  votes. 

The  proposed  measure  also  provides  that  the  Governor  and  certain 
defeated  candidates  for  Governor  shall  have  seats  and  votes  in  the 
legislature,  and  that  they  shall  hold  the  proxies  of  all  those  electors 
who  voted  for  the  unsuccessful  candidates  for  the  legislature  in  their 
several  parties.  This  ridiculous  proposition  would  enable  the  ex-officio 
members  to  combine  with  a  few  regular  members  and  defeat  all  legis- 
lation not  meeting  with  their  approval.  Successful  and  defeated  can- 
didates for  Governor  might,  on  the  other  hand,  prolong  their  campaign 
warfare  and  transform  the  legislature  into  a  clearing  house  for  political 
grievances. 

The  proposal  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor  the  sole  right  to 
introduce  appropriation  bills  would  clothe  the  chief  executive  with 
altogether  too  much  power  and  permit  him  to  exercise  undue  influence 
over  other  legislation.  This  is  a  government  of,  by  and  for  the  people, 


Appendix  273 

and  the  representative  of  the  people  should  enjoy  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  representatives  of  a  sovereign  state.  They  should  be  per- 
mitted to  meet  and  legislate  without  executive  interference  except 
through  the  constitutional  veto  power.  The  Governor  should  attend 
to  the  duties  of  the  executive  department  and  not  interfere  with  legis- 
lative matters  until  the  acts  are  finally  presented  to  him  for  approval 
or  disapproval.  Our  forefathers  recognized  the  three  coordinate 
branches  of  the  government  —  the  executive,  the  legislative  and  the 
judicial.  The  distinction  between  these  branches  has  been  recognized 
and  maintained  since  the  institution  of  the  government.  The  recent 
Democratic  convention  at  Baltimore  reaffirmed  its  faith  in  this  dis- 
tinction by  the  adoption  of  the  following  plank  in  its  platform : 

"We  believe  hi  the  preservation  and  maintenance  in  their  full 
strength  and  integrity  of  the  three  coordinate  branches  of  the 
federal  government  —  the  executive,  the  legislative  and  the  judi- 
cial —  each  keeping  within  its  own  bounds  and  not  encroaching 
upon  the  just  powers  of  each  of  the  others." 

Section  4  of  the  proposed  measure  provides  that  if  the  office  of  Gov- 
ernor shall  become  vacant  for  any  cause  except  by  the  recall,  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  shall  forthwith  call  a  special  election,  to  be  held  within 
sixty  days,  to  elect  a  Governor  for  the  unexpired  term.  Courts  have 
held  that  when  a  Governor  goes  over  the  State  line  he  ceases  to  be 
Governor  until  his  return  to  the  State ;  so,  in  the  event  of  the  absence 
of  the  Governor  from  Oregon,  or  of  his  ill  health  or  inability  to  perform 
his  duties,  the  taxpayers  will  be  called  upon  to  defray  the  expenses  of  a 
special  election.  This  feature  of  the  proposed  measure  is  altogether 
unnecessary,  inasmuch  as  there  is  now  pending  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment providing  for  the  election  of  a  Lieutenant  Governor,  and  of  an 
automatic  succession  to  the  Governor's  office  in  case  of  the  death, 
resignation  or  inability  of  the  chief  executive  to  perform  his  duties. 

The  proposed  amendment  provides  for  annual  sessions  of  the  legis- 
lature. Experience  has  taught  that  biennial  sessions  are  adequate  to 
the  needs  of  the  State.  We  have  at  present  too  many  elections,  too 
much  legislation  and  too  many  boards,  commissions  and  offices,  and 
it  is  time  for  a  policy  of  retrenchment  rather  than  the  adoption  of  a 
provision  for  annual  sessions  with  their  consequent  extravagance,  de- 
moralization of  general  business  and  political  excitement.  The  pro- 


274     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

posal  whereby  a  majority  of  the  legislators  may  unite  in  calling  a 
special  session  is  altogether  wrong,  for  it  would  enable  a  few  men  to 
continue  the  legislature  in  session  almost  indefinitely  and  thereby 
greatly  increase  the  burden  of  taxation. 

There  is  no  assurance  that  this  amendment  will,  if  enacted,  decrease 
the  burden  of  taxation  or  minimize  the  use  of  the  initiative  or  referen- 
dum. 

This  whole  measure  is  a  crude  experiment  and  the  public  good 
demands  its  defeat.    You  are,  therefore,  urged  to  vote  "No." 
Respectfully  submitted, 

MARION  COUNTY  TAXPAYERS'  LEAGUE, 
By  A.  M.  LAFOLLETT,  President. 


V.  AN  INITIATIVE  PETITION 
WARNING 

//  is  a  felony  for  any  one  to  sign  any  initiative  or  referendum  petition 
with  any  other  name  than  his  own,  or  to  knowingly  sign  his  name  more 
than  once  for  the  measure,  or  to  sign  such  petition  when  he  is  not  a  legal 

voter. 

INITIATIVE  PETITION 

To  the  Honorable  Ben.  W.  Olcott, 

Secretary  of  State  for  the  State  of  Oregon: 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  and  legal  voters  of  the  State  of  Oregon, 
respectfully  demand  that  the  following  proposed  law  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  legal  voters  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  for  their  approval  or  rejection, 
at  the  regular  general  election  to  be  held  on  the  fifth  day  of  November  A.D. 
1912,  and  each  for  himself  says:  I  have  personally  signed  this  petition; 
I  am  a  legal  voter  of  the  State  of  Oregon;  my  residence  and  postqffice  are 
correctly  written  after  my  name. 


NAME 

RESIDENCE 
(If  in  a  city,  street  and  number) 

POSTOFFICE 

[Here  follow  twenty  numbered  lines.] 


Appendix 


275 


STATE  OF  OREGON, 
County  of 


ss. 


being  first  duly  sworn,  say:  .  .  .  signed  this  sheet  of  the  foregoing  peti- 
tion, and  each  of  them  signed  his  name  thereto  in  my  presence;  I  believe 
that  each  has  stated  his  name,  postqffice  address,  and  residence  correctly, 
and  that  each  signer  is  a  legal  voter  of  the  State  of  Oregon  and  County  of 


Postqffice  address: 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this day  of ,  A.  D.  1912. 


Notary  Public  for  Oregon. 
Postqffice  address: 

A  BILL 

For  an  Act  to  exempt  certain  property  from  taxation. 
Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon: 

SECTION  i .  The  following  property  shall  be  exempt  from  taxation : 
All  debts  due  or  to  become  due,  whether  on  account,  contract,  note, 
mortgage,  bond  or  otherwise,  either  within  or  without  this  State ; 
all  public  stocks  and  securities ;  all  bonds,  warrants  and  moneys  due 
or  to  become  due  from  this  State,  or  any  county  or  other  municipal 
subdivision  thereof ;  all  stocks  and  shares  hi  incorporated  companies ; 
provided,  that  this  act  does  not  exempt  bank  stocks,  shares  and  bank- 
ing capital  from  assessment  and  taxation. 


VL    NEWSPAPER  ADVICE  ON  DIRECT  LEGISLATION 
Eugene  Register,  Oct.  29,  1914,  p.  4 

The  Measures  Summarized 


From  day  to  day  during  the  past 
month  The  Register  has  discussed  the 
measures  to  be  voted  on  this  fall,  tak- 
ing them  up  in  order  as  they  appear 
in  the  official  pamphlet.  They  are 


presented  herewith  in  summarized 
form,  together  with  advice  as  to  how 
to  vote  on  them.  This  advice  is  based 
upon  the  discussions  that  have  already 
appeared. 


276     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


Nos.  300-301.  Requires  voters  to 
be  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Ex- 
cellent measure  and  should  be  ap- 
proved. Vote  yes. 

Nos.  302-303.  Creates  office  of 
lieutenant  governor.  Already  de- 

feated once.     Not  needed.     Vote  no. 

Nos.  304-305.  Permits  consolida- 
tion of  city  and  county  governments 
when  county  contains  city  of  100,000 
inhabitants.  Applies  only  to  Portland 
and  Multnomah  county  and  is  in- 
tended to  promote  economy  there. 
Vote  yes. 


Nos.  306-307.  Permits  the  state  to 
incur  indebtedness  or  lend  its  credit 
up  to  four  per  cent  of  its  assessed  valu- 
ation for  road  construction  and  irriga- 
tion, power  and  development  projects. 
Opens  the  way  for  the  state  to  incur 
heavy  bonded  indebtedness.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  3o8~3og.  Clears  the  way  for 
much  needed  tax  reform.  Makes  pos- 
sible the  abolishment  of  the  tax  on 
mortgages.  Vote  yes. 

Nos.  310-311.  Permits  much 
needed  tax  reform.  Complementary 
measure  to  Nos.  308-300.  Vote  yes. 


Nos.  312-313.  Provides  for  re-estab- 
lishment of  Southern  Oregon  Normal 
school  at  Ashland  and  levies  one  fortieth 
of  a  mill  for  maintenance.  More  nor- 
mal schools  needed  for  the  training  of 
teachers  in  common  schools.  Vote  yes. 

Nos.  314-315.  Permits  the  consoli- 
dation of  cities  when  voters  concerned 
so  desire.  If  two  towns  wish  to  con- 
solidate, they  should  be  permitted  to 
do  so.  Vote  yes. 


Nos.  316-317.  Provides  for  the  re- 
establishment  of  Eastern  Oregon  Nor- 
mal school  at  Weston,  and  levies  tax  of 
one  fortieth  of  a  mill  for  maintenance. 
Same  reasons  apply  as  to  312-313. 
Vote  yes. 


Nos.  318-310.  Increases  pay  of  leg- 
islators from  three  to  five  dollars  a 
day  and  increases  maximum  length  of 
legislative  session  from  40  to  60  days. 
Provides  added  inducement  for  good 
men  to  go  to  the  legislature.  Vote 
yes. 


Nos.  320-321.  Universal  eight  hour 
law.  Most  vicious  measure  ever  pro- 
posed in  Oregon.  Would  ruin  every 
industry  in  the  state.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  322-323.  Eight  hour  law  for 
women  workers.  Not  needed.  Al- 
ready covered  by  industrial  welfare 
commission.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  324-325.  Non-partisan  judi- 
ciary bill.  Not  needed.  Same  re- 
sults can  be  achieved  without  chang- 
ing election  laws  if  voters  wish.  Vote 
no. 

Nos.  326-327.  $1500  exemption 
amendment.  Single  tax  with  a  sugar 
coating.  Purpose  is  to  increase  tax  on 
land.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  328-320.  Public  docks  and 
water  frontage  amendment.  Locks  up 
all  land  between  low  and  high  water 
mark  of  navigable  rivers  from  develop- 
ment. Menaces  all  industrial  con- 
cerns and  factories  that  need  water 
frontage.  A  tinkerer's  scheme.  Vote 


Nos.  330-331.     Municipal  wharves 


Appendix 


277 


and  docks  bill.  Companion  measure 
to  Nos.  328-329.  Tinkerer's  scheme. 
Vote  no. 

Nos.  332-333.  Prohibition  amend- 
ment. No  explanation  needed.  Vote 
yes. 

Nos.  334-335.  Abolishes  death 
penalty.  If  murderers  will  stop  mur- 
dering the  death  penalty  will  be  auto- 
matically abolished.  Leave  it  to  them. 
Vote  no. 

Nos.  336-337.  Graduated  extra 
tax  amendment.  Imposes  additional 
tax  on  land  above  a  certain  value. 
Single  tax  in  a  slightly  modified  form. 
Vote  no. 

Nos.  338-339.  Consolidating  cor- 
poration and  insurance  departments. 
Spite  measure,  designed  to  legislate  the 
corporation  commissioner  out  of  office. 
Vote  no. 

Nos.  340-341.  Dentistry  bill. 
Spite  measure,  initiated  because  one 
individual  failed  to  pass  the  state 
dental  examination.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  342-343.  County  officers' 
term  amendment.  One  of  the  few 
measures  on  the  ballot  that  provide  for 
real  economy.  Vote  yes. 


Nos.  344-345.  Tax  code  commis- 
sion bill.  Not  needed.  We  already 
have  a  state  tax  commission  that  is 
sufficient  for  all  purposes.  Vote  no. 


Nos.  346-347.  Purports  to  abolish 
desert  land  board.  Spite  measure  de- 
signed to  legislate  State  Engineer 
Lewis  out  of  office  because  of  political 
disagreements.  Destroys  present  ex- 
cellent water  code.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  348-349.  Proportional  repre- 
sentation amendment.  Tinkerer's 
scheme.  If  adopted  would  lead  to 
endless  confusion.  Vote  no. 


Nos.  350-351.  Abolishing  state  sen- 
ate. Tinkerer's  scheme.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  352-353.  Public  employment 
amendment.  Tinkerer's  scheme. 
Would  swamp  the  state  with  unem- 
ployed from  everywhere.  Vote  no. 


Nos.  354-355.  Primary  delegate 
election  bill.  Would  reestablish  con- 
vention system  and  provide  an  addi- 
tional election  at  heavy  cost.  A 
tinkerer's  scheme.  Vote  no. 

Nos.  356-357.  Equal  assessment 
and  taxation  and  $300  exemption 
amendment.  Tax  measure  whose 
need  is  not  apparent.  Vote  no. 


Oregonian,  Nov.  2,  1914,  p.  13 
RECOMMENDATIONS   OFFERED  ON  MEASURES 


The  Oregonian  again  presents  herewith  its  list  of  recommendations  on 
initiated  bills  and  amendments. 


For  an  amendment  of  section  2,  ar- 
ticle 2  of  the  constitution,  relative  to 
voting  qualifications.  300  yes,  301  no. 

Vote  300  yes. 


For  constitutional  amendment  to 
create  office  of  Lieutenant  Governor. 
302  yes,  303  no. 

Vote  303  no. 


278     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


For  an  amendment  to  section  6, 
article  15  of  the  constitution,  to 
permit  city  and  county  governments 
to  be  consolidated  upon  vote  of  the 
people  interested.  304  yes,  305  no. 

Vote  304  yes. 


For  amendment  to  section  7,  ar- 
ticle 9  of  the  constitution,  author- 
izing state  indebtedness  for  irriga- 
tion and  power  projects.  306  yes, 
307  no. 

Vote  307  no. 


For  amendment  of  section  22, 
article  i  of  the  constitution,  modi- 
fying the  uniform  rule  of  taxation. 
308  yes,  309  no. 

Vote  309  no. 


For  amendment  of  section  i,  ar- 
ticle 9  of  the  constitution.  310  yes, 

311  no. 

Vote  311  no. 

A  bill  for  an  act  to  levy  annually 
a  tax  to  reestablish  the  Southern 
Oregon  Normal  School  at  Ashland. 

312  yes,  313  no. 

No  recommendation. 

For  amendment  of  article  9  of  the 
constitution  permitting  enactment  of 
a  general  tax  law  authorizing  adjoin- 
ing cities  to  consolidate  on  vote  of 
their  electors.  314  yes,  315  no. 

Vote  314  yes. 

A  bill  for  an  act  to  levy  annu- 
ally a  tax  to  reestablish  the  State 
Normal  School  at  Weston,  Umatilla 
County.  316  yes,  317  no. 

No  recommendation. 

For  an  amendment  of  section  29, 
article  4  of  the  constitution,  rais- 


ing pay  of  legislators. 
Vote  319  no. 


318  yes,  319  no. 


Universal  constitutional  eight-hour 
day  amendment.     320  yes,  321  no. 
Vote  321  no. 

Eight-hour  day  for  female  work- 
ers.    322  yes,  323  no. 
Vote  323  no. 


Non-partisan 
yes,  325  no. 
Vote  324  yes. 


judiciary    bill.     324 


$1500    tax    exemption. 
327  no. 

Vote  327  no. 


326    yes, 


Public      docks      and      waterfront 
amendment.     328  yes,  329  no. 
Vote  329  no. 

Municipal     wharves     and     docks 
bill.     330  yes,  331  no. 
Vote  331  no. 

Prohibition   constitutional   amend- 
ment.    332  yes,  333  no. 
No  recommendation. 


Constitutional  amendment  abolish- 
ing death  penalty.     334  yes,  335  no. 
Vote  335  no. 

Specific        graduated        extra-tax 
amendment.     336  yes,  337  no. 
Vote  337  no. 

Consolidating  corporation  and  in- 
surance departments.  338  yes, 
339  no. 

Vote  339  no. 


Dentistry  bill. 
Vote  341  no. 


340  yes,  341  no. 


Appendix 


279 


County  officers'  term  amendment. 
342  yes,  343  no. 
Vote  342  yes. 


Tax    code    commission    bill.     344 
yes,  345  no. 
Vote  345  no. 

Measure  abolishing  Desert  Land 
Board  and  merging  certain  offices. 
346  yes,  347  no. 

Vote  347  no. 

Proportional  representation  amend- 
ment.    348  yes,  349  no. 
Vote  349  no. 

State  Senate  constitutional  amend- 


ment,    abolishing     that 
yes,  351  no. 
Vote  351  no. 


body. 


Constitutional  amendment  estab- 
lishing department  of  industry  and 
public  works.  352  yes,  353  no. 

Vote  353  no. 


Primary     delegate 
354  yes,  355  no. 
Vote  355  no. 


election     bill. 


Equal  assessment  and  taxations 
and  $300  exemption  amendment. 
356  yes,  357  no. 

Vote  357  no. 


Eugene  Register,  Nov.  3,  1914,  p.  i. 
CONDENSED  ADVICE   ON  THE   MEASURES 

Vote  yes.  Vote  no. 

No.  300.  No.  303. 

No.  304.  No.  306. 

No.  308.  No.  321. 

No.  310.  No.  323. 

No.  314.  No.  325. 

No.  316.  No.  327. 

No.  318.  No.  329. 

No.  332.  No.  331. 

No.  342.  No.  335. 

No.  337. 

No.  339. 

No.  341. 

No.  345- 

No.  347- 

No.  349. 

No.  351. 

No.  353- 

No.  355. 

No.  357- 

These  recommendations  are  the  same  as  have  appeared  in  more  amplified 
form  in  The  Register  in  previous  issues. 


280     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

VII.  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  TAXPAYERS'  LEAGUE 

November  3,  1914 

The  Taxpayers'  League  was  organized  many  years  ago.  It  has 
always  taken  an  active  interest  hi  public  affairs.  Since  the  adoption 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum  it  has  at  each  election  made  recom- 
mendations to  the  voters  on  the  measures  proposed. 

As  an  earnest  and  consistent  friend  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 
The  League  protests  against  their  indiscriminate  use  as  a  means  of 
advancing  some  individual's  peculiar  views,  or  some  special  interest, 
or  as  a  weapon  to  "get  even"  with  some  official  who  may  perchance 
disagree  with  some  one  in  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  his  office.  The 
initiative  and  referendum  "were  intended  and  can  only  be  used  as  a 
safeguard  by  the  public  against  misrepresentation  by  the  legislature 
and  not  as  an  original  source  of  general  legislation." 

Twenty-nine  measures  appear  on  the  ballot.  Of  these  fifteen  are 
constitutional  amendments  and  fourteen  are  bills  for  proposed  laws. 
The  character  and  purpose  of  some  of  the  measures  merit  most  careful 
consideration. 

The  League  would  feel  it  were  derelict  in  its  duty  if  it  did  not 
emphasize  the  fact  that  this  is  not  the  time  for  revolutionary  or  ex- 
perimental legislation.  Worldwide  as  well  as  local  conditions  should 
warn  us  to  be  on  our  guard.  The  constant  submission  of  half-baked, 
illy  considered  and  often  radical  measures  is  unquestionably  beginning 
to  create  distrust  abroad  with  the  result,  whether  they  pass  or  not, 
that  every  one  is  a  sufferer  from  it.  The  laborer,  the  mechanic,  the 
merchant,  the  banker  and  the  property  holder  alike  are  interested. 
In  the  interest  of  this  state  there  is  but  one  attitude  for  the  citizen 
to  take  and  that  is  to  be  sure  he  is  right  and  that  he  understands  a 
measure  before  he  votes.  At  a  1913  city  election  every  measure  pro- 
posed was  defeated.  Such  a  result  is  far  better  than  to  inadvertently 
pass  some  law  that  will  cause  the  people  of  this  state  untold  loss  be- 
fore it  can  be  repealed.  Measures  of  far  reaching  consequence  are  on 
the  ballot.  The  single  and  graduated  tax,  although  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  more  than  two  to  one  two  years  ago,  appear  in  a  different 
guise  but  for  the  same  purpose  and  backed  by  the  same  interests. 


Appendix 


281 


Eight  hour  laws  that  would  make  even  the  conduct  of  a  farm  or  the 
household  impossible  are  submitted;  a  bill  levying  a  confiscatory 
tax  on  estates  of  not  less  than  ten  per  cent  and  as  much  more  as  may  be 
provided  by  law,  and  to  create  a  department  of  industry  and  public 
works  to  furnish  work  for  the  unemployed  is  also  proposed.  State- 
wide prohibition  is  to  be  voted  on.  Abolishment  of  the  senate  and 
proportional  representation  are  also  proposed. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  important  measures  upon  which  the 
people  are  called  to  take  action.  Under  existing  conditions  we  sub- 
mit to  the  wage  earner,  the  home  owner  and  the  capitalist  alike  that 
due  consideration  should  be  given  before  embarking  upon  experimental 
legislation  and  revolutionary  changes.  WE  URGE  THE  VOTER 
WHEN  IN  DOUBT  TO  VOTE  "NO."  The  League  has  studied 
the  different  measures  proposed  and  submits  the  following  advice  and 
suggestions  to  voters  for  their  consideration. 

1.  VOTE  ON  EVERY  MEASURE. 

2.  WHEN  IN  DOUBT  — VOTE  "NO." 

3.  BETTER  BE  SURE  THAN  SORRY. 

TAXPAYERS'  LEAGUE, 
By  L.  J.  GOLDSMITH, 
Secretary. 


VOTERS  TO  BE  CITIZENS 

300  YES. 

301  NO. 

A  constitutional  amendment  pre- 
scribing citizenship  as  a  qualification 
for  voting.  An  immigrant  with  first 
papers  can  vote  now.  In  view  of  the 
important  duties  of  a  voter  in  this 
state,  full  citizenship  is  not  too  high 
a  requirement. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

LIEUTENANT  GOVERNOR 

302  YES. 

303  NO. 

To  act  as  president  of  the  senate 
and  to  receive  $10  a  day  during  leg- 
islative session.  To  succeed  the  gov- 


ernor in  case  the  latter  dies  or  is  dis- 
qualified. Would  prevent  log-rolling 
for  presidency  of  the  senate,  and  would 
provide  a  substitute  for  the  governor 
on  board  of  control.  The  secretary  of 
state  in  case  he  succeeds,  as  at  pres- 
ent, has  two  votes,  an  absolute  control. 
Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

CONSOLIDATION   OF   CITY   AND 
COUNTY   GOVERNMENT 

304  YES. 

305  NO. 

Gives  the  legislature,  or  the  people 
by  the  initiative,  power  to  consolidate 
city  and  county  government  where  a 
city  has  over  100,000  inhabitants.  This 
would  eliminate  a  large  amount  of 


282     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


duplication  and  needless  expense  and 

simplify  government  very  materially. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

INCREASE  OF  STATE  DEBT  LIMIT 

306  YES. 

307  NO. 

Prescribing  a  debt  limit  of  not  to  ex- 
ceed 2  per  cent  of  assessed  valuation  for 
road  building,  and  a  like  amount  for  the 
construction  of  irrigation,  power  proj- 
ects and  agricultural  development.  Ap- 
propriates no  money  but  authorizes  it 
to  be  done  if  deemed  advisable.  It 
would  authorize  the  state  to  issue  bonds 
up  to  $38,000,000.  This  is  excessive. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

ABOLISHING    UNIFORM    TAXA- 
TION RULE 

308  YES. 

309  NO. 

A  constitutional  amendment  elimi- 
nating the  present  requirement  that 
all  taxation  be  equal  and  uniform. 
Briefly  stated,  the  purpose  of  these 
proposed  amendments  is  to  authorize 
classification  of  property  for  taxation. 
A  necessary  change  if  we  expect  ever 
to  have  fair  and  equitable  taxation  in 
this  state.  Recommended  by  State 
Tax  commission. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

CLASSIFICATION  FOR  TAXATION 
PURPOSES 

310  YES. 

311  NO. 

Providing  for  general  laws  to  gov- 
ern the  levy  of  taxes ;  permitting  clas- 
sification of  property  for  taxation  pur- 
poses, and  also  income  and  propor- 
tional or  graduated  taxes,  and  author- 
izing reasonable  exemptions.  This, 
and  the  preceding  measure  go  together 
and  form  a  constitutional  basis  for  ra- 


tional and  equitable  tax  reform  in  this 
state.  This  and  the  foregoing  amend- 
ment are  both  sound  and  progressive 
and  should  not  be  confused  with  any 
other  tax  measure  or  measures. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

THE  ASHLAND   NORMAL 

312  YES. 

313  NO. 

Levying  A  of  a  mill  on  all  tax- 
able property  in  the  state  for  the  con- 
struction and  support  of  a  normal 
school  at  Ashland.  This  presents  a 
clear  issue  of  whether  the  voters  want 
more  normal  schools  or  not. 

No  recommendation. 

MERGER  OF  CITIES 

314  YES. 

315  NO. 

A  constitutional  amendment  au- 
thorizing a  general  law  to  allow  a  city 
to  surrender  its  charter  and  be  merged 
into  an  adjoining  city,  on  vote  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  electors  of  each  of  the 
cities  affected.  There  being  no  way 
to  affect  such  consolidation  now,  this 
measure  is  advisable. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

EASTERN  OREGON  STATE  NOR- 
MAL 

316  YES. 

317  NO. 

Levying  A  of  a  mill  tax  for  a  Nor- 
mal School  at  Weston  in  Umatilla 
County.  A  measure  similar  to  312- 
313  above. 

No  recommendation. 

INCREASING  PAY  TO  MEMBERS 
OF  THE  LEGISLATURE 

318  YES. 

319  NO. 

Legislative  pay  is  $3  a  day,  with  a 


Appendix 


283 


forty-day  limit.  This  increases  it  to  $5 
a  day  for  sixty  days.  It  is  not  apparent 
that  a  small  increase  in  pay  would  se- 
cure higher-class  men,  or  that  lengthen- 
ing the  session  without  providing  for  a 
divided  session,  would  be  beneficial. 
The  League  believes  legislative  reform 
should  go  deeper  and  be  more  radical. 
Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

UNIVERSAL  EIGHT-HOUR  LAW 
330    YES. 

321  NO. 

This  measure  provides  that  no  one 
shall  work  more  than  eight  hours  per 
day  in  any  employment  whatsoever. 
It  would  disorganize  and  make  impos- 
sible much  of  the  business  and  work 
carried  on  in  the  state.  Domestic 
help  and  farm  labor  would  be  particu- 
larly hard  hit  under  it. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "No." 

EIGHT-HOUR  LAW  FOR  WOMEN 

322  YES. 

323  NO. 

This  prescribes  an  eight-hour  day  in 
most  of  the  occupations  in  which  wo- 
men are  employed.  The  State  Indus- 
trial Welfare  Commission  is  now  in 
charge  of  the  work,  with  ample  au- 
thority to  enforce  any  provisions  of 
the  sort  it  finds  advisable.  This  law 
is  superfluous,  would  needlessly  com- 
plicate and  confuse  the  situation,  and 
would  work  a  positive  hardship  on 
many  women  at  present  employed.  It 
is  inflexible,  and  exceptions  could  not 
be  made,  as  is  now  possible  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Welfare  Commission. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

NON-PARTISAN   JUDICIARY 
334    YES. 
325    NO. 

This  bill  prohibits  party  nomina- 


tions for  judicial  offices,  and  provides 
for  nominations  by  petition  of  i  per 
cent  of  the  legal  voters  in  the  district. 
Would  prevent  political  designation  on 
the  ballot.  Would  make  possible  a 
choice  of  judges  on  the  basis  of  fit- 
ness, rather  than  party  affiliations  and 
party  services.  The  legislature  or  the 
people  can  provide  for  preferential  vot- 
ing, if  they  desire.  A  non-partisan 
election  should  do  much  to  keep  the 
judiciary  out  of  politics. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  Yes." 

$1500  TAX  EXEMPTION 

326  YES. 

327  NO. 

Exempting  from  taxation  all  per- 
sonal property,  dwelling  houses,  build- 
ings, and  improvements  on  land,  live- 
stock, etc.,  up  to  $1500,  belonging  to 
any  one  person,  the  land  itself  to  be 
taxed.  This  is  one  of  Mr.  U'Ren's 
measures,  and  is  partial  single  tax. 
Single  tax  has  been  repudiated  very 
decisively  in  this  state.  It  is  not 
working  satisfactorily  anywhere  else, 
and  this  [is]  a  poor  time  for  Oregon 
to  experiment  with  it. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

PUBLIC  DOCKS  AND  WATER- 
FRONTAGE 

328  YES. 

329  NO. 

An  amendment  prohibiting  the  sale 
of  beds  of  navigable  waters,  and  sub- 
jecting the  same  to  public  use.  Pro- 
viding for  leasing  to  private  parties 
for  constructing  wharves,  docks,  etc. 
Would  revoke  valuable  wharfage  rights, 
claimed  by  riparian  owners,  on  which 
taxes  have  long  been  paid,  and  in  which 
the  state  has  acquiesced.  Adoption  of 
the  amendment  would  be  followed  by 
long  litigation  and  uncertainty  as  to 


284     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


titles.  Would  remove  much  property 
from  the  tax  rolls,  and  unsettle  condi- 
tions to  an  extent  the  state  can  ill  af- 
ford at  this  time. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

MUNICIPAL       WHARVES       AND 
DOCKS 

330  YES. 

331  NO. 

This  measure  follows  the  preceding 
one,  and  authorizes  the  building  of 
municipal  wharves  and  docks  on  the 
land  covered  by  that  amendment.  It 
should  stand  or  fall  with  the  preced- 
ing one. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

PROHIBITION 

332  YES. 

333  NO. 

This  is  a  clear  issue,  on  which  the 
people  are  well  advised,  and  on  which 
it  appears  that  any  recommendation 
would  be  superfluous. 

No  recommendation. 

ABOLISHING    DEATH    PENALTY 

334  YES. 

335  NO. 

This  is  another  clear  issue,  on  which 
opinion  is  already  well  formed. 
No  recommendation. 

SUR-TAX 

336  YES. 

337  NO. 

This  levies  a  confiscatory  tax  on  all 
owners  of  realty  assessed  at  more  than 
$25,000.  No  argument  is  possible  in 
support  of  this  sort  of  provision.  Is 
an  attempt  to  impose  burdensome  tax- 
ation on  lands  and  to  reach  single  tax 
by  indirection.  Would  ruin  the  mar- 
ket for  land,  and  do  inestimable  harm 
to  the  state.  It  is  in  substance  the 


same  bill  as  was  proposed  and   over- 
whelmingly  defeated   two   jears    ago 
as  part  of  the  single  tax  program. 
Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

CONSOLIDATING  CORPORATION 
AND  INSURANCE  DEPARTMENTS 

338  YES. 

339  NO. 

This  is  a  spite  measure  and  an  ob- 
vious abuse  of  the  initiative.  An  at- 
tempt to  legislate  an  officer  out  of 
office  on  personal  grounds.  It  should 
be  decisively  defeated. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

DENTISTRY  BILL 

340  YES. 

341  NO. 

Another  personal  measure,  obvi- 
ously initiated  for  advertising  pur- 
poses. Would  put  the  standard  of 
efficiency  in  the  practice  of  dentistry 
lower  than  in  almost  any  other  state. 
An  abuse  of  the  initiative. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

INCREASING  TERM  OF  COUNTY 
OFFICERS 

342  YES. 

343  NO. 

Would  give  four-year  terms  to  the  of- 
ficers elected  at  this  election.  If  an  of- 
ficer has  made  good  at  the  end  of  two 
years,  he  will  be  reelected.  If  not,  the 
two-year  term  gives  the  people  an  oppor- 
tunity to  get  rid  of  him,  without  the  ex- 
pense of  a  recall.  This  measure  would 
not  reduce  the  number  of  elections,  and 
would  not  cut  down  expenses. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  NO." 

TAX   CODE   COMMISSION 

344  YES. 

345  NO. 

The  State  now  has  a  Tax  Commis- 


Appendix 


285 


sion,  and  has  heretofore  had  various 
special  ones.  No  real  tax  reform  is 
possible  unless  the  constitutional 
amendments  No.  308-309  and  No.  310- 
311  are  carried.  The  proposed  Com- 
mission is  superfluous. 

Voters  are  Advised  to  Vote  "  No." 

ABOLISHING       DESERT       LAND 
BOARD 

346  YES. 

347  NO. 

This  measure  abolishes  the  office 
of  State  Engineer  and  abolishes  the 
Desert  Land  Board.  The  measure  is 
ill-advised  and  would  largely  nullify 
the  present  Water  Code  and  hamper 
very  seriously  the  cooperative  work 
with  the  Federal  Government  in 
stream  measurement,  topographic  map 
making,  etc.  The  State  Engineer  is 
a  necessary  officer,  and  the  office 
is  doing  excellent  work.  No  reason 
appears  why  it  should  be  stopped. 

Voters  are  Advised  to  Vote  "No." 

PROPORTIONAL     REPRESENTA- 
TION 

348  YES. 

349  NO. 

Provides  that  each  voter  vote  for 
one  candidate  for  representative  and 
the  sixty  in  the  state  receiving  the 
highest  number  be  elected.  Question- 
able if  this  would  give  us  as  represen- 
tative legislators  as  we  now  have.  A 
large  proportion  of  votes  would  be 
wasted  on  very  popular  candidates, 
who  would  be  elected  anyhow,  or 
others  with  no  chance.  With  no  elim- 
inating process  a  large  proportion 
would  be  elected  with  only  a  small 
plurality.  Each  legislator  having  one 
vote,  a  man  elected  by  25,000  votes 
and  another  by  1000  would  have  equal 
authority.  A  majority  in  the  legisla- 


ture would  not  necessarily  in  any 
way  represent  the  majority  of  the 
voters.  And  unless  that  condition  is 
to  be  attained,  no  change  is  justified. 
Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

ABOLISHING  STATE  SENATE 

350  YES. 

351  NO. 

Experience  has  shown  that  some 
check  on  legislative  action  is  wise. 
The  two  house  system  is  approved  by 
the  experience  of  all  parts  of  the 
world.  This  measure  proposes  to  abol- 
ish the  Senate,  usually  composed  of 
the  older  and  more  experienced  legis- 
lators, and  to  turn  the  whole  work 
over  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

DEPARTMENT     OF     INDUSTRY 
AND   PUBLIC   WORKS 

352  YES. 

353  NO. 

This  is  a  measure  initiated  by  the 
Socialist  party  providing  for  a  tax 
of  not  less  than  ten  per  cent,  and  as 
much  more  as  the  legislature  may 
name,  on  all  estates  of  deceased  per- 
sons, amounting  to  $50,000  or  over, 
and  for  appropriations  to  be  made 
for  the  support  of  a  department  to 
take  care  of  the  unemployed.  It  would 
draw  the  unemployed  of  the  whole 
United  States  to  Oregon  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  people  of  this  state. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

PRIMARY  DELEGATE  ELECTION 
BILL 

354  YES. 

355  NO. 

This  measure  would  add  one  elec- 
tion to  the  number  we  now  have,  with 
the  effect  of  getting  us  back  to  the 
old  convention  system.  It  is  an  at- 


286     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 


tempt  to  knock  out  the  present  direct 
primary  in-a  very  expensive  and  cum- 
bersome way. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 

TAXATION:    TWO-THIRDS  VOTE 

TO   AMEND   OR  REPEAL 
336    YES. 
357    NO. 

This    measure,    if    carried,    would 


make  permanent  the  present  defective 
and  inadequate  taxation  system  in  this 
state  by  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote 
to  modify  it.  It  is  the  more  danger- 
ous in  that  it  would  perpetuate  any 
of  the  illy-considered  or  confiscatory 
tax  measures  that  may  pass  at  this 
election.  It  is  strictly  a  "  gag " 
measure. 

Voters  are  advised  to  vote  "  No." 


COUPON 

CUT  OUT  AND  TAKE  WITH  YOU 

Voters  to  be  citizens Vote  Yes  300 

Lieutenant  Governor Vote  Yes  302 

Consolidation  City  and  County Vote  Yes  304 

Increase  State  Debt  Limit Vote  No  307 

Abolishing  Uniform  Taxation  Rule Vote  Yes  308 

Classification  for  Taxation  Purposes Vote  Yes  310 

Ashland  Normal  School No  Recommendation 

Merger  of  Cities Vote  Yes  314 

Eastern  Oregon  State  Normal No  Recommendation 

Increasing  Legislative  Pay  Vote  No  319 

Universal  Eight-hour  Law Vote  No  321 

Eight-hour  Law  for  Women Vote  No  323 

Non-partisan  Judiciary Vote  Yes  324 

$1500  Tax  Exemption Vote  No  327 

Public  Docks  and  Water  Frontage Vote  No  329 

Municipal  Wharves  and  Docks Vote  No  331 

Prohibition No  Recommendation, 

Abolishing  Death  Penalty No  Recommendation 

Sur-tax    Vote  No  337 

Consolidating  Corporation  and  Insurance  Departments Vote  No  339 

Dentistry  Bill Vote  No  341 

Increasing  Term  of  County  Officers Vote  No  343 

Tax  Code  Commission Vote  No  345 

Abolishing  Desert  Land  Board Vote  No  347 

Proportional  Representation Vote  No  349 

Abolishing  State  Senate Vote  No  351 

Department  of  Industry  and  Public  Works   Vote  No  353 

Primary  Delegate  Election  Bill    Vote  No  355 

Two-thirds  Vote  on  Taxation  Measures Vote  No  357 

(Paid  advertisement  Taxpayers'  League,  L.  J.  Goldsmith,  Secy.,  321  Corbett  Bldg.) 


Oregon  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1914,  p.  12. 


Appendix  287 

VIII.  ADVERTISEMENTS 

SINGLE  TAX==KILL  IT 

Single  Tax  Is  Again  on  the  Ballot  Cleverly  Dis- 
guised. There  Are  Seven  Tax  Bills  on  the  Bal- 
lot and  Two  of  Them  Are  Single  Tax  in  Effect 

TO   BEAT  SINGLE  TAX 

Vote  327  No  and  337  No 


There  are  thousands  of  people  in  the  City  of  Portland  who  are  striving  to 
pay  for  their  lots  and  get  a  home.  If  this  measure  is  carried  their  property 
will  be  absolutely  confiscated  and  they  will  be  compelled  to  sacrifice  what  they 
have  paid  on  the  property.  It  is  unquestionably  the  most  unjust  measure  that 
was  ever  offered. 

The  best  citizens  in  a  community  are  those  who  own  real  property  and  this 
is  a  direct  blow  to  that  class  of  citizens  and  if  you  wish  to  be  square  with  lot 
owners  be  sure  to  defeat  these  two  measures. 

These  measures,  if  carried,  will  increase  the  taxes  on  your  lots  over  40  per 
cent.  It  is  one  of  the  most  vicious  and  cunningly  disguised  measures  on  the 
ballot. 

Bear  in  mind  there  is 

NO   EXEMPTION  WHATEVER 
ON  LOTS  OR  LAND 

but  on  the  contrary  the  taxes  on  your  land  is  greatly  increased. 

The  Realty  Board  of  Portland  most  earnestly  ask  your  complete  coopera- 
tion in  defeating  this  most  unjust  increase  in  taxes. 

F.  N.  CLARKE,  Chairman, 
FRED  A.  JACOBS, 
A.  C.  CALLAN. 

(Paid  Advertisement.) 

Ortfonian,  Nov.  2,  1914,  p.  6. 


288     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

WORKINGMEN  VOTE  309  X  —  NO 

After  a  hard  struggle  against  the  money  of  the  Employer's  Associa- 
tion, the  people,  in  November,  1910,  passed  the  Employers'  Liability 
Law.  This  has  been  tried  and  has  given  entire  satisfaction.  It  re- 
quires protection  rather  than  compensation,  and  that  is  what  we 
wanf.  Under  the  Compensation  Act  of  Washington,  in  seven  months, 
accidents  increased  from  25yper  cent  to  59TV  per  cent.  (See  Oregon- 
ian,  Aug.  17.)  The  Washington  Commission,  however,  tries  to  lay 
this  at  the  door  of  Mr.  John  Barleycorn,  which  is  ridiculous. 

The  lumber  interests  of  this  state,  who  have  the  "human  butcher 
shops,"  opposed  the  Employers'  Liability  Law  with  large  sums  of 
money.  In  1911,  they  raised  another  "slush"  fund,  and  went  to  the 
Legislature  by  the  trainloads  to  pass  a  compensation  act.  The  labor 
unions  of  Portland  succeeded  in  defeating  the  bill.  Again,  at  the  last 
Legislature,  they  raised  a  large  sum  of  money,  and  went  hi  trainloads 
to  the  Legislature,  and  succeeded  in  passing  the  present  bill.  These 
efforts  were  all  made,  and  this  bill  was  passed  to  defeat  the  Employers' 
Liability  Law. 

Under  the  present  Compensation  Act,  a  man  with  both  arms  or 
both  legs  or  both  eyes  removed,  which  would  be  permanent  dis- 
ability, would  receive  $25.00  per  month.  Multnomah  County  pays 
at  the  rate  of  $26.70  per  month  to  keep  paupers.  Who  would  keep 
any  man  with  both  of  his  legs  off  for  $25.00  per  month? 

Again,  the  Employers'  Association  succeeded  in  having  Harvey 
Beckwith  appointed  a  Commissioner.  The  only  thing  to  recommend 
him  was  the  fact  that  he  was  forty  years  with  big  express  companies. 

The  Oregonian  of  October  25  has  an  article  stating  the  Industrial 
Insurance  Commission  of  Washington  won  a  victory  because  it  de- 
feated a  widow  from  recovering  when  her  husband  was  killed  as  a 
result  of  a  rock  flying  from  a  blast,  striking  him  while  he  was  eating  his 
meal  at  the  company's  boarding  table.  Mr.  Beckwith  will  always 
have  some  excuse  to  keep  from  paying  the  pitiful  amounts  mentioned 
in  his  Compensation  Act. 

The  laboring  people  do  not  want  this  act. 

F.  L.  GUTORD,  Business  Manager, 

International  Brotherhood  of  Electrical  Workers. 

(Paid  Advertisement.) 

Oregonian,  Nov.  i,  1913,  p.  2. 


Appendix  289 

X.   A  RECALL  PETITION 
Hood  River  County,  1913 

RECALL  PETITION 
WARNING 

It  is  a  felony  for  any  one  to  sign  any  initiative  or  referendum  peti- 
tion with  any  name  other  than  his  own,  or  to  knowingly  sign  his  name 
more  than  once  for  the  same  measure,  or  to  sign  such  petition  when 
he  is  not  a  legal  voter. 

To  the  Honorable  W.  E.  Hanson,  County  Clerk  of  Hood  River 
County,  State  of  Oregon. 

We,  the  undersigned,  citizens  and  legal  voters  and  qualified  electors 
of  the  State  of  Oregon  and  County  of  Hood  River,  by  this  petition 
respectively  demand  the  immediate  resignation  and  recall  of  Geo.  R. 
Castner  from  the  office  of  County  Judge,  Geo.  A.  McCurdy  and  J.  R. 
Putnam  from  the  offices  of  County  Commissioners,  all  of  Hood  River 
County,  Oregon,  which  offices  they  now  hold  and  have  held  for  a 
period  of  more  than  six  months  prior  to  the  circulation  of  this  petition. 

That  no  recall  petition  has  been  filed  against  said  officers  or  either 
of  them,  nor  any  special  recall  election  held  against  said  officers  or 
either  of  them  during  their  term  of  office. 

We  further  respectfully  demand,  that  if  the  said  Geo.  R.  Castner, 
Geo.  A.  McCurdy  and  J.  R.  Putnam  do  not  resign  from  the  offices  of 
County  Judge  and  Commissioners  of  Hood  River  County,  Oregon, 
within  five  (5)  days  after  the  date  of  the  filing  of  this  petition,  you  call 
a  special  election  in  said  County  of  Hood  River,  State  of  Oregon, 
within  twenty  (20)  days  thereafter  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  General  Laws  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  and 
each  for  himself  says :  "I  have  personally  signed  this  petition ;  I  am 
a  legal  voter  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  and  County  of  Hood  River ;  my 
residence  and  postoffice  are  correctly  written  after  my  name." 

The  following  are  the  reasons  for  demanding  the  immediate  res- 
ignation and  recall  of  the  said  Geo.  R.  Castner,  Geo.  A.  McCurdy  and 
J.  R.  Putnam  from  the  offices  of  Judge  and  Commissioners  of  Hood 
River  County,  Oregon. 

That  the  said  Geo.  R.  Castner,  Geo.  A.  McCurdy  and  J.  R.  Putnam 
in  the  conduct  of  their  said  offices  as  Judge  and  Commissioners  of 
u 


290     Initiative,   Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

Hood  River  County,  Oregon,  have  been  unwise  and  inefficient,  careless 
and  extravagant  in  the  management  of  the  County  business,  and  in 
proof  we  cite  the  following  facts : 

(i) 

On  the  7th  day  of  February,  1913,  the  said  Judge  and  Commis- 
sioners appointed  C.  K.  Marshall  Road  Master  of  Hood  River  County, 
Oregon,  for  one  (i)  year  at  a  salary  of  $5.00  per  day  and  from  $2.50 
to  $7.50  per  day  additional  for  the  use  of  his  automobile  while  working 
for  the  county  as  a  Road  Master.  (The  record  shows  C.  K.  Marshall 
was  paid  $40.00  for  inspecting  the  Tucker  Bridge,  $33.85  for  viewing 
roads,  $471.25  for  services  and  automobile  as  Road  Master  in  five 
months.  No  Bills  presented  and  no  salary  for  the  months  of  July 
and  August  have  been  paid  to  Mr.  Marshall.) 

(2) 

Unnecessarily  expending  heavy  sums  of  money  for  improperly 
oiling  roads. 

(3) 

Allowing  and  paying  unitemized  claims  against  the  county  (Ex- 
tract from  grand  jury  report  under  date  July,  1913)  "We  find  that  the 
bills  presented  against  the  county  are  not  as  a  rule  itemized  as  to 
articles,  labor  performed,  time  or  dates,  and  we  therefore  recommend 
that  all  bills  presented  against  the  county  be  itemized." 

(4) 

Permitting  a  wagon  bridge  to  be  improperly  constructed  across 
Hood  River  (near  Winan's  place)  and  paying  $1730.28  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  bridge,  which  was  built  in  a  grossly  negligent  and 
careless  manner  and  is  dangerous  and  unsafe  for  traffic. 

[Here  follow  signatures  of  electors  accompanied  by  the  verification 
prescribed  by  statute.] 


Appendix  291 

XI.  A  RECALL  BALLOT 

STUB  STUB 

To  be  torn  off  by  the  chairman       To  be  torn  off  by  the  first  clerk 

SAMPLE  BALLOT 

SPECIAL   MUNICIPAL   ELECTION,    CITY   OF    FLORENCE 
FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER   13,  1914 

Make  a  cross  (X)  between  the  number  and  name  of  each  candidate 
or  answer  voted  for. 

REASONS  FOR  DEMANDING  RECALL  OF  GEORGE  W. 
EVANS,  MAYOR. —  That  on  or  about  May  16,  1914,  the  said 
George  W.  Evans  as  Mayor  of  the  City  of  Florence,  did  authorize 
and  direct  the  destruction  of  a  building  belonging  to  Al  Ready ;  which 
act  was  contrary  to  law  and  in  excess  of  the  authority  of  said  Mayor. 

That  Al  Ready  did  subsequently  obtain  a  judgment  against  George 
W.  Evans,  in  an  action  in  the  Justice  Court,  Florence  Precinct,  for 
damages  occasioned  by  said  wrongful  act;  and  that  on  or  about 
August  3,  1914,  said  George  W.  Evans,  Mayor,  did,  in  a  session  of 
the  Council  of  the  City  of  Florence,  authorize  and  vote  for  the  pay- 
ment of  said  judgment  and  costs,  amounting  to  about  $81.70,  out  of 
funds  belonging  to  the  City  of  Florence ;  which  act  constituted  a 
wrongful  conversion  of  the  funds  of  said  city. 

We  assert  that  on  account  of  these  and  sundry  other  illegal  acts 
the  said  George  W.  Evans  is  an  unfit  person  to  hold  the  office  of  Mayor 
of  the  City  of  Florence. 

MAYOR  GEORGE  W.  EVANS'  JUSTIFICATION  OF  HIS 
COURSE  IN  OFFICE.  —  "That  no  action  for  damages  has  ever  been 
brought  against  George  W.  Evans  in  his  private  capacity,  but  in  fact, 
against  George  W.  Evans  as  Mayor,  and  against  another  officer, 
and  against  both  in  their  official  capacity,  and  that  the  improvement 
made  by  the  destruction  of  the  building  mentioned  was  greatly  in 
excess  of  this  amount ;  that  the  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Florence 
in  regular  session  authorized  the  payment  of  said  judgment,  it  being 
absolutely  impossible  for  the  Mayor  or  any  other  officer  of  the  City 
to  pay  this  amount  without  the  Council's  action,  and  that  the  alle- 


292     Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  Oregon 

gation  that  the  Mayor  authorized  the  payment  of  the  same  is  made 
only  to  misrepresent  the  facts ;  that  I  am  willing  to  leave  my  other  acts, 
both  as  to  this  matter  and  to  all  other  things,  to  the  consideration  of 
the  voters." 

Shall  George  W.  Evans  be  recalled  from  the  office  of  Mayor  ? 

12  Yes 

13  No 

For  Mayor  Vote  for  one. 

15  C.  D.  MOREY. 

14  GEORGE  W.  EVANS. 


INDEX 


INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM. 

Abolition  of  legislature,  120-30,  150-61. 

Adoption,  3-5. 

Advertisements,  287-8. 

Amendment  of  constitution.  See 
constitutional  amendment. 

Amendment  of  direct  legislation  by 
legislature,  145-56. 

Amendment  of  initiative  measures 
before  submission  to  vote,  28-9. 

Associations  as  authors,  18 ;  as  educa- 
tors of  voters,  97,  266—74,  280-8. 

Authors  of  measures,  9-20.  See 
Motives. 

Ballot,  length,  78-80;  sample,  288. 
Ballot  titles,  8,  29,  43-4,   45,    52-3, 

107-11. 

Bibliography,  221-7. 
Burden  on  voters,  78-85. 

Campaign  organization,  86 ;  methods, 
93-9.  See  Finance. 

Combination  of  subjects  in  measures, 
42,  43-6,  112-3. 

Competition  with  legislature,  159-65. 

Concealment  of  authorship,  13-6.  See 
Fraud. 

Conflict  of  measures,  7,  47-9,  115-7. 

Conservatives.    See  Radicals. 

Constitution,  stability,  180-4. 

Constitutional  amendments,  6,  177-8, 
180-4. 

Constitutional  convention,  177-9. 

Constitutional  limitations,  applicable 
to  direct  legislation,  180-1 ;  absence 
in  legislation  by  initiative,  180-3; 
referendum  as  a  substitute  for  con- 
stitutional limitations  on  legislature, 
171—2. 

Constitutionality  of  provisions  for  ini- 
tiative and  referendum,  128,  note  2 ; 
constitutionality  of  measures  deter- 
mined by  courts,  173-4. 


INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  —  Cont. 
Courts,  relation  to  direct  legislation, 
173-6;    interpretation,   173-4;    de- 
clare unconstitutional,  173-4;   "re- 
call" of  decisions,  174-6. 

Deception.    See  Fraud. 
Definitions,  5. 

Division  of  statutes  as  check  on  ref- 
erendum, 144. 
Drafting  measures.    See  Preparation. 

Education  of  voters,  91-100. 

Elections,  interest,  101-3. 

Emergency  legislation,  132-44. 

Executive,  author  of  measures,  12-3, 
126-7 ;  veto  of  referendum  measures, 
10,  126;  veto  as  protection  against 
abuse  of  emergency  clause,  135-9, 
141 ;  as  protection  against  abuse  hi 
amendment  and  repeal  of  direct 
legislation  by  legislature,  146,  150, 
152,  156;  as  cause  of  use  of  direct 
legislation,  163 ;  influence  of  direct 
legislation  on  executive,  127. 

Expenses,  87-90. 

Federal  matters,  187. 
Finance,  87-90. 
Form  of  measures,  50-3. 
Fraud,  13-6,  29,  42-4,  65-74. 

Governor.    See  Executive. 
History,  3-5. 

Individuals  as  authors,  16-8. 
Information  for  voters,  93-9,  254-74, 

275-9,  287-8. 

Intelligence  in  voting,  99-100,  107-25. 
Interest  in  elections,  101-3. 
Interests,  21-5,  113-5. 
Interpretation  of  measures  by  courts, 

173-4- 


293 


294 


Index 


INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  —  Cont. 

Law,  5-8,  227-40. 

Legislature,  faults  as  cause  of  adoption 
of  initiative  and  referendum,  4; 
author  of  measures,  6-7,  9-12,  30, 
85,  164-5;  nullify  veto  by  referen- 
dum, 10;  resubmission  of  measures 
defeated  at  election,  u,  146,  155 ; 
public  opinion  bills,  157-8;  powers 
shared  with  voters,  128-30;  aboli- 
tion of  legislature,  129-30,  150-61 ; 
regulation  of  initiative  and  referen- 
dum, 131-2,  149;  emergency  legis- 
lation, 132-44;  division  of  statutes, 
144;  amendment  and  repeal  of 
direct  legislation,  145-56;  competi- 
tion of  direct  legislation  with  legis- 
lature, 28-9,  78-85,  150-66;  faults 
of  legislature  as  cause  of  direct  legis- 
lation, 82-5,  159-63,  167-8;  effect 
of  direct  legislation  on  legislature, 
9-11,  167-70;  constitutional  re- 
strictions removable  on  account  of 
referendum,  171-2. 

Local  initiative  and  referendum,  not 
considered,  v. 

Local  interests,  22-5,  113. 

Log-rolling,  22-5,  44-6. 

Majority  vote  required,  6-7,  103-5, 
1 80.  See  Minority. 

Measures,  preparation,  26-30 ;  classi- 
fied, 31-41 ;  number  proposed,  78- 
80,  241-53 ;  enacted,  105-7,  241-53. 

Minority  rights,  103-5,  182-3.  See 
Majority. 

Motives,  21-5,  113-5. 

Number  of  measures  proposed,  78-80, 
241-53;  enacted,  105-7,  241-53. 

Pamphlet  for  voters,  8,  93-5,  254-74. 

People,  authors  of  measures,  13-20. 

People's  Power  League,  3,  18,  254-70. 

Petitions,  percentage  required,  6,  54-8 ; 
form,  7,  274-5  >  verification  of  sig- 
natures, 7-8,  70-1,  275 ;  geographi- 
cal distribution  of  signatures,  58-9; 
payment  of  circulators,  59-64 ; 
methods  of  circulators,  64-74 ;  sub- 
stitutes for  circulation,  74-7;  an 
initiative  petition,  274-5. 


INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  —  Cont. 

Political  parties,  185-6. 

Popularity  of  initiative  and  referen- 
dum, 3-5,  178-9,  188. 

Preparation  of  measures,  26-30. 

Press,  influence  in  direct  legislation, 
96-7,  98-9,  275-9. 

Progressives.    See  Radicals. 

Public  opinion  bills,  157-8. 

Radicals,  progressives,  and  conserva- 
tives, 18-20,  31-2,  117-20. 

Recall  of  judicial  decisions,  174-6. 

Regulation  of  initiative  and  referendum 
by  legislature,  131-2,  149. 

Repeal  of  direct  legislation  by  legisla- 
ture, 145-56. 

Representative  government,  98-9,128- 
30,  159- 

Republican  form  of  government,  128. 

Separate  items  subject  to  referendum, 

6. 

Special  interests,  21-5,  113-5. 
Stability  of  government,  180-4. 
Subjects  of  measures,  31-41,  241-53; 

suitable     and     unsuitable,     37-41, 

112-3. 

U'Ren,  W.  S.,  3,  4-5,  note,  17-8. 

Vote  on  measures,  101-25,  241-53; 
interest  in  elections,  101-3 ;  mi- 
nority v.  majority,  103-5 !  amount 
of  legislation  enacted,  105-7 »  ra- 
tionality of  the  vote,  107-25 ;  con- 
fusion of  the  measure  with  the  refer- 
endum, 107  ;  identification  of  meas- 
ures, 107-8 ;  knowledge  of  contents 
of  measures,  108-12;  attention  to 
legal  technicalities,  112;  vote  on 
subjects  unsuitable  to  direct  legis- 
lation, 112-3;  on  measures  sub- 
mitted by  selfish  interests,  113-5; 
on  conflicting  measures,  115-7; 
conservatism  and  progressivism  in 
the  vote,  1 1 7-20 ;  vote  of  the  uncer- 
tain voter,  121-3;  vote  as  protest, 
123;  intelligence  of  the  vote  in 
general,  123-5. 


Index 


295 


RECALL. 
Adoption,  IQI. 
Authors,  200,  211-2. 

Ballot,  192,  215,  291-2. 
Bibliography,  221-7. 

Campaign,  211-2. 

Checks  on  recall  movements,  213-4. 

Concealment  of  authorship,  200,  212. 

Definition,  IQI. 

Effects,  194,  217-8. 

Elections    attempted,    202-7;     held, 
194-202 ;  interest,  216. 

Federal  officers,  193. 
Finance,  193,  213. 
Fraud,  212. 

History,  191. 

Impeachment  and  recall,  216-7. 
Interest  in  elections,  216. 
Issues  confused,  214-6. 


RECALL  —  Cow/. 
Judges,  202,  205-6,  208-10. 

Law,  191-4,  240-1. 

Majority.    See  Plurality. 
Motives,  207-11,  216-7. 

Officers  subject,  191,  193-4;  effect  on 
officers,  217-8;  term  lengthened, 
217. 

Petition,  sample,  289-90. 
Petition  making,  191-3,  211-3. 
Plurality  election,  192,  215-6. 

Referendum  as  substitute  for  recall, 
213-4. 

Short  ballot,  relation  to  recall,  217-8. 
Threats  of  recall,  207. 
U'Ren,  W.  S.,  191. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


'HE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of  a 
few  of  the  Macmillan  books  on  kindred  subjects 


The  New  American  Government  and  Its  Work 
BY  JAMES   T.  YOUNG 

Professor  of  Public  Administration  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 

Cloth,  8vot  $2.23 

This  book,  intended  for  that  growing  circle  of  readers  who  are  inter- 
ested not  only  in  political  form  and  structure,  but  also  more  especially 
in  What  the  Government  Is  Doing  and  Why,  is  characterized  by  the 
following  features : 

1 .  It  places  greater  emphasis  than  usual  on  the  work  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

2.  It  pays  more  attention   to  present  problems,  especially  to  the 
Public  Regulation  of  Business. 

3.  It  applies  to  every  aspect  of  government  the  test  of  Results  — 
whether  the  subject  be  the  powers  of  the  President,  the  election  laws, 
or  the  Sherman  Act  —  for  the  value  of  a  court,  a  statute,  or  a  political 
institution  should  be  known  by  its  output. 

4.  It   depicts  the  Government  As  It  Is,  and  as  it  has  developed. 
Our  system  is  not  a  finished  crystal,  nor  an  ancient  historical  manu- 
script, but  a  growth.     And  it  is  still  growing. 

5.  It  includes  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  and  the  chief 
regulative  laws,  in  the  most  recent  Decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court.     It 
is  this  that  gives  clear,  definite  meaning  to  the  discussion  of  govern- 
ment forms  and  activities. 

6.  It  presents  an  Ideal.     It  does  not  hesitate  to  point  out  the  moral 
defects,  and  the  social  cost  of  political  weakness  and  inefficiency  but  its 
Tone  is  Optimistic. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


Documents  on  the  State- wide 
Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall 

By  CHARLES  A.  BEARD,  Associate  Professor  of  Politics 
in  Columbia  University;  and  BIRL  E.  SHULTZ,  Indiana 
Scholar  in  Political  Science  in  Columbia  University. 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $2.00 

This  volume  includes  all  of  the  constitutional  amendments  providing 
for  a  state-wide  system  of  initiative  and  referendum  now  in  force, 
several  of  the  most  significant  statutes  elaborating  the  constitu- 
tional provisions,  all  of  the  constitutional  amendments  now  pending 
adoption,  six  important  judicial  decisions,  and  certain  materials 
relative  to  the  state- wide  recall.  While  no  attempt  has  been  made 
to  go  into  the  subject  of  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall  as 
applied  to  local  and  municipal  government,  some  illustrative  papers 
showing  the  system  in  ordinary  municipalities  and  commission- 
governed  cities  have  been  included. 


In  the  introductory  note  Professor  Beard  presents  a  keen  analysis 
and  scholarly  discussion  of  the  documents  contained  in  this  volume. 
His  conclusions  will  be  found  intensely  stimulating  and  suggestive 
to  every  student  of  political  science  who  is  interested  in  the  present- 
day  movement  toward  popular  reform. 

Furthermore,  the  book  will  be  found  the  most  convenient  source 
upon  which  to  base  a  course  on  this  subject.  It  will  also  be  a  valu- 
able supplementary  text  for  use  in  courses  on  State  Legislation, 
Party  Government,  etc. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


A  NEW  STUDY  OF  SOCIOLOGY 


Outlines  of  Sociology 


BY  FRANK   W.  BLACKMAR 

Professor  of  Sociology  in  the  University  of  Kansas 


AND 

JOHN   L.  GILLIN 

Associate  Professor  of  Sociology  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin 

8vo,  $2.00 

A  unified  survey  of  the  entire  field  of  sociology.  Theoretical  phases 
of  the  subject  are  fully  treated,  and  its  practical  bearings  developed  in 
chapters  on  social  pathology  and  the  methods  of  social  investigation. 
The  inclusion  of  the  latter  serves  to  vitalize  the  study  of  sociology  by 
giving  the  reader  an  opportunity  to  make  a  first  hand  stud)7  of  society, 
while  supplying  him  with  a  few  simple  principles  to  guide  him  in  the 
work. 

The  subject  is  treated  under  the  following  main  headings : 

Part  I,  The  Nature  and  Import  of  Sociology.  II,  Social  Evolution. 
Ill,  Socialization  and  Social  Control.  IV,  Social  Ideals  and  Social 
Control.  V,  Social  Pathology.  VI,  Methods  of  Social  Investigations. 
VII,  The  History  of  Sociology. 

Conspicuous  for  the  broad  scope  of  its  treatment,  its  up-to-dateness 
on  the  newer  lines  of  sociological  thinking,  and  the  simple  direct 
method  of  presentation,  the  "  Outlines  of  Sociology "  offers  an  admi- 
rable book  for  club  and  individual  reading. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


The  Government  of  American  Cities 

BY  PROFESSOR  WILLIAM    B.  MUNRO 

Of  Harvard  University 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2.00 

Here  Professor  Munro  presents  with  fairness  and  impartiality  all  the  as- 
pects of  such  subjects  as  Commission  Government,  The  Initiative,  The  Refer- 
endum, The  Recall.  Other  phases  of  municipal  government  in  this  country 
are  also  considered,  so  that  the  work  may  be  described  as  a  comprehensive 
survey  of  present  conditions  in  our  cities.  The  book  is  found  even  more  in- 
teresting and  stimulating  than  the  author's  "  The  Government  of  European 
Cities." 

BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 

The  Government  of  European  Cities 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2.00 

"  On  the  whole  Professor  Munro's  book  may  be  fairly  characterized  as  the 
most  useful  of  its  kind  thus  far  published,  because  it  furnishes  the  material 
for  making  comparisons  which  must  inevitably  disclose  the  true  course  of 
numerous  American  municipal  shortcomings."  —  San  Francisco  Chronicle. 

"This  book  is  distinctly  an  addition  to  our  text-books  on  municipal  admin- 
istration, despite  the  fact  that  we  have  several  very  good  ones  already.  It  is 
a  book  which  will  prove  of  great  benefit  to  the  serious-minded  reader  inter- 
ested in  municipal  governments ;  but  it  will  probably  be  used  mostly  as  a 
reference  or  text-book  in  colleges  and  universities." —  The  American  Jour- 
nal of  Sociology. 

"  Cette  etude  est  tres  fructueuse  pour  tous  ceux  qu'interessent  les  questions 
de  droit  public  compare. "  —  Societe  Beige  a" Etudes  Coloniales. 

"  Dr.  Munro's  book  is  an  indispensable  one  to  the  student  of  municipal 
government  who  would  acquaint  himself  with  the  experience  of  the  world. 
He  modestly  disclaims  any  assumption  of  exhaustiveness,  but  it  certainly 
gives  us  an  admirably  clear  picture  alike  valuable  from  its  analytical,  com- 
parative, and  historical  aspects."  —  The  Argonaut,  San  Francisco. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


American  Municipal  Progress 

BY  CHARLES   ZUEBLIN 

New  Edition,  Entirely  Rewritten  and  Greatly  Enlarged 

Professor  Zueblin's  work  has  a  message  for  all  who  live  in 
either  a  great  metropolis  or  a  small,  progressive  town.  It  is 
not  so  much  a  new  and  revised  edition  of  Mr.  Zueblin's  earlier 
work  as  it  is  a  new  volume.  The  development  of  the  cities  and 
the  growth  of  the  social  conscience  in  the  past  decade  have 
made  necessary  a  larger  treatment,  and  the  author,  although 
using  the  earlier  work  as  a  nucleus  for  the  new,  has  almost 
doubled  its  pages,  and  at  the  same  time  has  added  to  its  value 
with  many  illustrations. 

The  book  takes  up  in  detail  such  problems  as  public  utilities, 
schools,  libraries,  children's  playgrounds,  parks,  public  baths 
and  public  gymnasiums ;  also  such  questions  as  those  of  rapid 
transit,  sanitation  and  the  care  of  streets ;  the  latest  experiments 
in  municipal  ownership  and  municipal  administration  are  re- 
corded. The  discussion  is  from  the  standpoint  of  public  welfare, 
and  is  based  on  repeated  personal  investigations  in  the  leading 
cities  of  the  United  States.  Despite  its  large  interest  for  the 
general  reader,  its  comprehensiveness  makes  it  valuable  to  the 
research  student  as  well,  and  its  exhaustive  bibliography  is  in- 
valuable to  the  specialist.  The  work  is  unique  and  will  be 
found  a  complete  guide  in  many  unfamiliar  paths. 


THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


The  American  City  :    A  Problem  in  Democracy 
BY  DELOS    F.  WILCOX,  Pn.D. 

New  edition.     Cloth,  I2mo, 

The  problem  of  city  government  is  a  live  one  to-day.  Dr.  Wilcox 
believes  that  the  great  political  and  social  reforms  of  the  future  will 
come  through  the  city.  By  tracing  the  causes  of  city  growth,  the  pecul- 
iarities of  life  in  the  city  and  its  ideals  of  democracy,  he  has  tried  to 
make  plain  to  all  the  breadth  of  a  city's  influence,  the  foundations  of  its 
organization,  the  extent  of  its  responsibility  and  the  sources  of  its  reve- 
nue in  this  country. 

"This  book  will  commend  itself  as  a  study  of  the  municipal  problem 
in  our  larger  and  more  important  cities.  Mr.  Wilcox  has  brought  to- 
gether a  large  amount  of  expert  information."  —  New  York  Call. 

"  The  book  will  instruct  the  citizen  interested  in  clean  politics,  and 
especially  the  voter  wishing  to  find  the  best  forward  step  to  promote 
civic  decency  and  Justice."  —  Chicago  Examiner. 

/ 
Voting  Trusts  :   Chapters  in  Recent  Corporate  History 


BY   HARRY    A.  GUSHING 

Of  the  New  York  Bar 


Cloth,  Bvo,  $1.50 


This  is  a  concisely  written  volume  of  real  interest  to  investigators 
and  business  men  as  well  as  to  trust  company  officials  and  lawyers.  It 
is  the  first  book  on  the  subject  and  covers  the  early  history  of  voting 
trusts  and  the  details  of  their  more  recent  development.  The  facts 
have  been  gathered  and  collated  with  substantial  thoroughness  as  illus- 
trations of  the  discussion  under  the  three  heads  of  the  significance,  the 
contents,  and  the  law  of  voting  trusts.  A  selection  of  important  docu- 
ments is  also  included. 


THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publisher!  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY,  LOS  ANGELES 

COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

REi/u  uui  m 


JUL  3  0  ?96t 


Get  31  5  6 


Book  Slip-25m-9,'60 


College 
Library 


UCLA-College  Library 

JF49506B2 


